Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] core.fsync: introduce granular fsync control

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:21 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if fsync_or_die() interface is abstracted well enough,
> > or we need things like "the fd is inside this directory; in addition
> > to doing the fsync of the fd, please sync the parent directory as
> > well" support before we start adding more components (if there is such
> > a need, perhaps it comes before this step).
> >
>
> I think syncing the parent directory is a separate fsyncMethod that
> would require changes across the codebase to obtain an appropriate
> directory fd. I'd prefer to treat that as a separable concern.

> > > +#define FSYNC_COMPONENTS_DEFAULT (FSYNC_COMPONENT_PACK | \
> > > +                               FSYNC_COMPONENT_PACK_METADATA | \
> > > +                               FSYNC_COMPONENT_COMMIT_GRAPH)
> >
> > IOW, everything other than loose object, which already has a
> > separate core.fsyncObjectFiles knob to loosen.  Everything else we
> > currently sync unconditionally and the default keeps that
> > arrangement?
> >
>
> Yes, trying to keep default behavior identical on non-Windows
> platforms.  Windows will be expected to adopt batch mode, and have
> loose objects in this set.