On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had idea to name old default as FSYNC, but it would be too scientific. > I like FSYNC, I do not think it is too scientific. Definitely not more scientific than LOG_ONLY. For old DEFAULT, STRICT or STRICT_SYNC - IMO are best options, so I agree > with Ivan. > Not sure I like STRICT. In Linux world, fsync is a well known command which does exactly what our FSYNC mode will do: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fsync.2.html . STRICT, on the other hand, is not a commonly understood term. Why create a new term to define something that has already been defined? Also, what if tomorrow we need to add an even stricter parameter? Then we are back to the same problem we are trying to fix right now. D.
