From: slumos@...
Date: 2002-01-19T05:59:06+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] #59 Add fsync method to IO class

matz@ruby-lang.org (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: [RCR] #59 Add fsync method to IO class"
>     on 02/01/19, Eric Lee Green <eric@badtux.org> writes:
> 
> |>   * how common are they?
> |
> |Extremely common in any database system. 
> 
> OK, fine.
> 
> |>   * what if it's not defined on the platform?
> |
> |Then it's a NOP, and transactional stuff won't work reliably (shrug). 
> |Which is no different from the current situation. 
> 
> We have to make up consensus about fdatasync.  Choose one:
> 
>   (1) fsync and fdatasync; NOP if not exist
>   (2) fsync and fdatasync; error if not exist
>   (3) fsync only; NOP if not exist
>   (4) fsync only; error if not exist
>   (5) we don't need both
> 
> I won't vote for 5; maybe I'm going to vote for 4.
> 							matz.

I haven't used either of them, so my opinion is based on reading the
manpages and a healthy sense of paranoia.

I want to say 4 unless/until somebody has a documented need for
fdatasync(), but that seems silly when the implementation is so easy
so I say 2.

Steve