| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(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>, Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Brown <michael(dot)brown(at)discourse(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? |
| Date: | 2021-09-30 04:08:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJYChC0witfaTrURsds4Y6cOnCb1-P2UvBvui8pwQhTEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:49 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> fsync_pgdata() is going to manipulate many inodes anyway, because
> that's a code path designed to do so. If we know that syncfs() is
> just going to be better, I'd rather just call it by default if
> available and not add new switches to all the frontend tools in need
> of flushing the data folder, switches that are not documented in your
> patch.
If we want this it should be an option, because it flushes out data
other than the pgdata dir, and it doesn't report errors on old
kernels.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-09-30 04:14:43 | Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |
| Previous Message | Osumi | 2021-09-30 04:06:31 | RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |