On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:49 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > fsync_pgdata() is going to manipulate many inodes anyway, because > that's a code path designed to do so. If we know that syncfs() is > just going to be better, I'd rather just call it by default if > available and not add new switches to all the frontend tools in need > of flushing the data folder, switches that are not documented in your > patch.
If we want this it should be an option, because it flushes out data other than the pgdata dir, and it doesn't report errors on old kernels.
