X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86331D1DA97 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:05:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85793-04 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:05:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DB3D1D643 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:05:30 -0400 (AST) Received: (debugging) helo=deneb.enyo.de ip=212.9.189.171 name=deneb.enyo.de Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1AsLy6-0002Mt-H7; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:05:54 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.30) id 1AsLxU-0001l1-RE; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:05:16 +0100 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:05:16 +0100 To: Tom Lane Cc: shridhar@frodo.hserus.net, PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint Message-ID: <20040215130516.GA5939@deneb.enyo.de> References: <46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA49620A3@m0114.s-mxs.net> <2297.1075992889@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200402052045.48448.shridhar@frodo.hserus.net> <3593.1075998120@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3593.1075998120@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Florian Weimer X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/563 X-Sequence-Number: 50152 Tom Lane wrote: > You can only fsync one FD at a time (too bad ... if there were a > multi-file-fsync API it'd solve the overspecified-write-ordering issue). What about aio_fsync()?