Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 02:30:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> - Should we have some regression tests?  We should only need one test
> in one of the binaries to be able to stress the new code paths of
> file_utils.c with syncfs.   The cheapest one may be pg_dump with a
> dump in directory format?  Note that we have tests there that depend
> on lz4 or gzip existing, which are conditional.

I added one for initdb in v8.

> - Perhaps 0002 should be split into two parts?  The first patch could
> introduce DataDirSyncMethod in file_utils.h with the new routines in
> file_utils.h (including syncfs support), and the second patch would
> plug the new option to all the binaries.  In the first patch, I would
> hardcode DATA_DIR_SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC.

Ha, I was just thinking about this, too.  I actually split it into 3
patches.  The first adds DataDirSyncMethod and uses it for
recovery_init_sync_method.  The second adds syncfs() support in
file_utils.c.  And the third adds the ability to specify syncfs in the
frontend utilities.  WDYT?

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