Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?

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: 2023-08-22 03:53:53
Message-ID: ZOQxUU7F85hDQpRO@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 07:06:32PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> This would look something like the attached patch. I think this is nicer.
> With this patch, we don't have to choose between including fd.h or
> redefining the macros in the frontend code.

Yes, this one is moving the needle in the good direction. +1.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-08-22 04:05:22 Re: Make all Perl warnings fatal
Previous Message John Naylor 2023-08-22 03:17:45 Re: [PATCH] Add function to_oct