This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author neologix
Recipients nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou, ronaldoussoren, santoso.wijaya, sdaoden, vstinner
Date 2011-05-12.21:40:30
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-12 21:40:30neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, ronaldoussoren, pitrou, vstinner, nadeem.vawda, santoso.wijaya, sdaoden
2011-05-12 21:40:30neologixsetmessageid: <1305236430.65.0.742599323555.issue11877@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-05-12 21:40:30neologixlinkissue11877 messages
2011-05-12 21:40:30neologixcreate