Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ?

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:49 PM Michael Paquier <michael@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.