On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:53 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> That was fun, but now I'm asking myself: do we really want to use an
> IO synchronisation facility that's not declared by the vendor?
I should add, the default wal_sync_method is open_datasync, not
fdatasync. I'm pretty suspicious of that too: neither O_SYNC nor
O_DSYNC appears as a documented flag for open(2) and the numbers look
suspicious. Perhaps they only define them to support aio_fsync(2).