| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2023-08-30 00:10:47 |
| Message-ID: | ZO6JB3s4EepXvSBn@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 08:45:59AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> rebased
0001 looks OK, worth its own, independent, commit.
I understand that I'm perhaps sounding pedantic about fsync_pgdata()..
But, after thinking more about it, I would still make this code fail
hard with an exit(EXIT_FAILURE) to let any C code calling directly
this routine with sync_method = DATA_DIR_SYNC_METHOD_SYNCFS know that
the build does not allow the use of this option when we don't have
HAVE_SYNCFS. parse_sync_method() offers some protection, but adding
this restriction also in the execution path is more friendly than
falling back silently to the default of flushing each file if
fsync_pgdata() is called with syncfs but the build does not support
it. At least that's more predictible.
I'm fine with the doc changes.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-08-30 00:13:11 | Re: Standardize spelling of "power of two" |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-08-29 23:22:27 | Re: pg_stat_get_backend_subxact() and backend IDs? |