| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Subject: | Re: Report buffer access strategies in EXPLAIN |
| Date: | 2026-11-06 02:18:07 |
| Message-ID: | au043wfMSkc_qMTm@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 05:51:08PM -0800, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> Is there a reason we feel that "strategy ring" is the better choice?
> If we wanted to make it more clear that its a ring buffer used as part
> of a buffer access strategy maybe we can do "strategy ring buffer"?
> (or "strategic ring buffer"?)
It's used in the glossary of the documentation on HEAD, at least. I'd
tend to agree that "Buffer Access Strategy ring" would be a more
complete term when not in the context of the glossary page. If the
BAS are explicitely described, like in the glossary, "strategy ring"
reads fine.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-11-06 02:47:19 | Re: Fix stale column context after COPY FROM conversion errors |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-11-06 02:14:57 | Re: Report buffer access strategies in EXPLAIN |