Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, 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: 2023-09-20 19:07:48
Message-ID: 20230920190748.GA2960472@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 03:12:56PM +0300, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> As a solution, I suggest renaming sync_method in xlog module to
> wal_sync_method. In fact,
> appropriate GUC for this variable, called "wal_sync_method" and I see no
> reason not to use
> the exact same name for a variable in xlog module.

+1

I think we should also consider renaming things like SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC to
WAL_SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC, and sync_method_options to wal_sync_method_options.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-09-20 19:14:54 Re: remaining sql/json patches
Previous Message Tristan Partin 2023-09-20 18:13:03 Re: pg_upgrade --check fails to warn about abstime