| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Brown <michael(dot)brown(at)discourse(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fdatasync performance problem with large number of DB files |
| Date: | 2021-03-18 14:03:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20210318140352.GC8529@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 09:54:11AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:19:13PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 8:52 PM Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> > > About the syncfs patch, my first impression on the guc name sync_after_crash
> > > is that it is a boolean type. Not sure about other people's feeling. Do you guys think
> > > It is better to rename it to a clearer name like sync_method_after_crash or others?
> >
> > Works for me. Here is a new version like that, also including the
> > documentation change discussed with Fujii-san, and a couple of
> > cosmetic changes.
>
> Are we sure we want to use the word "crash" here? I don't remember
> seeing it used anywhere else in our user interface. I guess it is
> "crash recovery".
Maybe call it "recovery_sync_method"?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2021-03-18 14:19:12 | Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references |
| Previous Message | Ibrar Ahmed | 2021-03-18 13:57:15 | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |