On 7/5/21 11:46 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:43 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: >>> On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> However, I think we should also give serious consideration to >>>> "debug_clobber_cache" or "debug_clobber_cache_always" for continuity >>>> with past practice (though it still feels like "always" is a good >>>> word to lose now). "debug_clobber_caches" is another reasonable >>>> variant. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clobbering refers to cases where storage had >>> no >>> changes to its accessibility but now contains different data. That doesn't >>> match InvalidateSystemCaches() especially well, so I think dropping that >>> word >>> has been a good step. Some other shorter terms could be debug_flush_caches, >>> debug_rebuild_caches, or debug_expire_caches. (debug_caches is tempting, >>> but >>> that may ensnare folks looking for extra logging rather than a big >>> slowdown.) >> I like "debug_flush_caches" --- it's short and accurate. > Do we always flush the cache entries into the disk? Sometimes we just > invalidate the cache entries in the registered invalidation callbacks, > right? Since we already use the term "clobber" in the user visible > config option --clobber-cache, isn't it consistent to use > debug_clobber_caches? >
I think 'flush' here means simply 'discard'. Maybe that would be a better word to use. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
