On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 08:48:58AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > 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.
+my $supports_syncfs = check_pg_config("#define HAVE_SYNCFS 1"); That should be OK this way. The extra running time is not really visible, right? +command_ok([ 'initdb', '-S', $datadir, '--sync-method', 'fsync' ], + 'sync method fsync'); Removing this one may be fine, actually, because we test the sync paths on other places like pg_dump. > 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? This split is OK by me, so WFM. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature