Re: [w3c/IndexedDB] Define flush-to-disk guarantees and control (#50)

I like `relaxedDurability: true` a bit more, because it doesn't make any implementation promises. Also, I think the word `flush` was poisoned, because POSIX has `fflush` (write to OS buffer cache) / `fsync` (write to storage medium) while Windows has `FlushFileBuffers` that writes to the storage medium.

To be clear, we (Chrome) would like to provide a mode that skips writing to the storage medium (`fsync`). We're not currently interested in skipping the `fflush`, because the cost of writing to the OS is small compared to typical IPC overhead.

Also, I wouldn't be against Firefox's approach of disabling `fsync` by default and requiring applications to opt in. Handling power failures is very subtle, and I don't think it's too bad to assume that no apps do it correctly today, so I think it'd make sense to ask developers to explicitly opt into stronger durability guarantees. 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/50#issuecomment-502904067