Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Brown <michael(dot)brown(at)discourse(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?
Date: 2023-09-01 02:17:27
Message-ID: 20230901021727.GA3097511@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:40:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That should be OK this way. The extra running time is not really
> visible, right?

AFAICT it is negligible. Presumably it could take a little longer if there
is a lot to sync on the file system, but I don't know if that's worth
worrying about.

> +command_ok([ 'initdb', '-S', $datadir, '--sync-method', 'fsync' ],
> + 'sync method fsync');
>
> Removing this one may be fine, actually, because we test the sync
> paths on other places like pg_dump.

Done.

> This split is OK by me, so WFM.

Cool.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v9-0001-move-PG_TEMP_FILE-macros-to-file_utils.h.patch text/x-diff 4.1 KB
v9-0002-make-common-enum-for-sync-methods.patch text/x-diff 3.7 KB
v9-0003-add-support-for-syncfs-in-frontend-support-functi.patch text/x-diff 15.8 KB
v9-0004-allow-syncfs-in-frontend-utilities.patch text/x-diff 25.7 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2023-09-01 03:03:43 Re: Should we use MemSet or {0} for struct initialization?
Previous Message Chapman Flack 2023-09-01 01:41:40 Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods