Message134142
| Author |
sdaoden |
| Recipients |
nadeem.vawda, neologix, ronaldoussoren, sdaoden, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年04月20日.12:08:07 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.3416353e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<20110420120759.GB60812@sherwood.local> |
| In-reply-to |
<1303234762.52.0.706759541504.issue11877@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> when one calls fsync, he expects [...]
> Fixing this deficiency through Python's exposed fsync [...]
I think so, too.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fsync.html
even permits "null implementation"s etc. etc. etc.
(I like the last paragraph of "Rationale" the most.)
os.rst states for fsync():
[...] to ensure that all internal buffers associated with *f*
are written to disk.
If a platform offers the opportunity to actually implement the
desired behaviour then i would do so, regardless of what needs to
be done internally to achieve it.
(And the single question on apple is simply what to do otherwise
with that VMS/VFS bug for at least large sparse files.
I can only imagine adding multiple notes in the documentation,
here and there.) |
|