| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: copy_file_range is now a Linux kernel call |
| Date: | 2018-01-03 04:08:05 |
| Message-ID: | 32230.1514952485@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-01-02 22:44:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks like we'd better rename our function. Anybody have an idea
>> more creative than "pg_copy_file_range"?
> I'd rather name it pg_rewind specific,
OK ...
> something like
> rwnd_copy_file_range or such.
Bleah --- "rwnd" is unpronounceable and not an abbreviation we're
currently using anywhere. If we go that way, let's brave carpal tunnel
syndrome by calling it "rewind_copy_file_range". But I'm not that
happy with any of these.
Filipe Rosset pointed out to me off-list that we're not the only
ones feeling the pain:
https://sourceforge.net/p/e2fsprogs/code/ci/01551bdba16ab16512a01affe02ade32c41ede8a
Maybe go with copy_file_chunk like e2fsprogs did?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-03 04:11:22 | Re: Observations in Parallel Append |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-01-03 03:54:29 | Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support |