| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 06:56:03 |
| Message-ID: | YVVfg2Zt/LCyi0pM@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 05:08:24PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> 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.
Oh, OK, thanks. That's the part about 5.8. The only option
controlling if sync is used now in those binaries is --no-sync.
Should we use a different design for the option rather than a
--syncfs? Something like --sync={on,off,syncfs,fsync} could be a
possibility, for example.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-09-30 06:59:07 | Re: pg_stat_replication_slots docs |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-09-30 06:47:44 | pg_stat_replication_slots docs |