On 12/5/10 2:12 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I modified test_fsync in two ways to run this; first, to make it support
>> O_DIRECT, and second to make it run in the *current* directory.
>
> Patch please? I agree with the latter change; what test_fsync does is
> surprising.
Attached.
Making it support O_DIRECT would be possible but more complex; I don't
see the point unless we think we're going to have open_sync_with_odirect
as a seperate option.
> I suggested a while ago that we refactor test_fsync to use a common set
> of source code as the database itself for detecting things related to
> wal_sync_method, perhaps just extract that whole set of DEFINE macro
> logic to somewhere else. That happened at a bad time in the development
> cycle (right before a freeze) and nobody ever got back to the idea
> afterwards. If this code is getting touched, and it's clear it is in
> some direction, I'd like to see things change so it's not possible for
> the two to diverge again afterwards.
I don't quite follow you. Maybe nobody else did last time, either.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com