Message135870
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou, ronaldoussoren, santoso.wijaya, sdaoden, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年05月12日.21:40:30 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.0362977e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1305236430.65.0.742599323555.issue11877@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> and if they do they thus really strive for data integrity, so call
> fsync() as a fallback for the security which Apple provides.
Why?
If I ask a full sync and it fails, I'd rather have an error returned so that I can take the appropriate decision (abort, roll-back, try a standard fsync) rather than have Python silently replace it by an fsync.
> Also: we cannot let os.fsync() fail with ENOTTY!?
Why not, since that's what the kernel returns?
Once again, since the default behaviour doesn't change, this won't break any existing application. |
|