Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 06:54:12AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I didn't pursue this patch, as it's easier for me to use /bin/sync -f.  Someone
> should adopt it if interested.

I was about to start a new thread, but I found this one with some good
preliminary discussion.  I came to the same conclusion about introducing a
new option instead of using syncfs() by default wherever it is available.
The attached patch is still a work-in-progress, but it seems to behave as
expected.  I began investigating this because I noticed that the
sync-data-directory step on pg_upgrade takes quite a while when there are
many files, and I am looking for ways to reduce the amount of downtime
required for pg_upgrade.

The attached patch adds a new --sync-method option to the relevant frontend
utilities, but I am not wedded to that name/approach.

Thoughts?

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