Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Maxim Orlov
Subject Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?
Date
Msg-id CACG=ezYqivQrgeSeP8xQao1RXLgVJrwaoyzEbCgsixGy8wLB3w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view


On Wed, 20 Sept 2023 at 22:08, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we should also consider renaming things like SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC to
WAL_SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC, and sync_method_options to wal_sync_method_options.

I've already rename sync_method_options in previous patch.
 34 @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ static bool check_wal_consistency_checking_deferred = false;
 35  /*
 36   * GUC support
 37   */
 38 -const struct config_enum_entry sync_method_options[] = {
 39 +const struct config_enum_entry wal_sync_method_options[] = {

As for SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC rename, PFA patch.
Also make enum for WAL sync methods instead of defines.

--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: remaining sql/json patches