Hello xpaulbettsx, thanks for your comment! Yes I guess the implementation may get more complex, not sure about the actual implementation it's just a linked li

Hello xpaulbettsx, thanks for your comment! Yes I guess the implementation may get more complex, not sure about the actual implementation it's just a linked list of operations to flush like it happens looking at a few source code fragments, then it's just possible to put a "sentinel" in the list that will block the first fsync() when the first sentinel is found and so forth. I mean, I'm all against the complexity myself in the code I write, so I can't really question this behavior and the "fsync every second" policy is not a huge use case indeed, but still it's important to now that. Googling a bit around there are tons of people that appear to be pretty confident that moving fsync() into another thread is the way to go, while instead stuff are working in a different way.