| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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>, 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(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? |
| Date: | 2023-09-01 18:19:13 |
| Message-ID: | ZPIrISXQz1FOsh6/@pryzbyj2023 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 11:08:51AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > This should probably give a distinct error when syncfs is not supported
> > than when it's truely recognized.
>
> Later versions of the patch should have this.
Oops, right.
> > The patch should handle pg_dumpall, too.
>
> It looks like pg_dumpall only ever fsyncs a single file, so I don't think
> it is really needed there.
What about (per git grep no-sync doc) pg_receivewal?
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-09-01 18:31:00 | Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-09-01 18:08:51 | Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? |