Horton

Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Michael Brown <michael.brown@discourse.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-08-21T23:25:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 04:08:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Doesn't seem worth it to me. I think --no-sync is more intuitive than
> --sync-method=none, it's certainly shorter, and it's a pretty
> important setting because we use it when running the regression tests.

No arguments against that ;)
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Adjust documentation for syncfs().

  2. Improve the naming in wal_sync_method code.

  3. Allow using syncfs() in frontend utilities.

  4. Add support for syncfs() in frontend support functions.

  5. Make enum for sync methods available to frontend code.

  6. Move PG_TEMP_FILE* macros to file_utils.h.

  7. Change client-side fsync_fname() to report errors fatally