Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?
Date
Msg-id 20230731175138.GA432880@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 02:40:10PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> 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.

Here is a new version of the patch with documentation updates and a couple
other small improvements.

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance operations.
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: add timing information to pg_upgrade