| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2023-08-21 20:08:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobERGms_+O7pFCLEzgcexSCB9JCkuzZFxyW702gf3BVGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:50 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >> Do we actually need --no-sync at all if --sync-method is around? We
> >> could have an extra --sync-method=none at option level with --no-sync
> >> still around mainly for compatibility? Or perhaps that's just
> >> over-designing things?
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion. We could take up deprecating --no-sync in a
> > follow-up thread, though. Like you said, we'll probably need to keep it
> > around for backward compatibility, so it might not be worth the trouble.
>
> Okay, maybe that's not worth it.
Doesn't seem worth it to me. I think --no-sync is more intuitive than
--sync-method=none, it's certainly shorter, and it's a pretty
important setting because we use it when running the regression tests.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2023-08-21 20:10:43 | Re: [PATCH] Add function to_oct |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2023-08-21 20:04:53 | Re: C function to return double precision[][] |