On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:16 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > > Thinking about this some more, if you were to propose a patch like > > that syncfs() one but make it a configurable option, I'd personally be > > in favour of trying to squeeze it into v14. Others might object on > > commitfest procedural grounds, I dunno, but I think this is a real > > operational issue and that's a fairly simple and localised change. > > I've run into a couple of users who have just commented that recursive > > fsync() code out! > > I'm a little skeptical about the "simple" part. At minimum, you'd > have to syncfs() each tablespace, since we have no easy way to tell > which of them are on different filesystems. (Although, if we're > presuming this is Linux-only, we might be able to tell with some > unportable check or other.)
Right, the patch knows about that: + /* + * On Linux, we don't have to open every single file one by one. We can + * use syncfs() to sync whole filesystems. We only expect filesystem + * boundaries to exist where we tolerate symlinks, namely pg_wal and the + * tablespaces, so we call syncfs() for each of those directories. + */
