Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> OK, but the point of adding all those configuration options was to allow
> us to figure out which was faster.  If you can do the code so we no
> longer need to know the answer of which is best, why bother adding the
> config options.

How in the world did you arrive at that idea?  I don't see anyone around
here but you claiming that we don't need any experimentation ...

			regards, tom lane