On Tuesday 02 February 2010 19:14:40 Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:36:12 Robert Haas wrote: > >>> I took a look at this patch today and I agree with Tom that > >>> pg_fsync_start() is a very confusing name. I don't know what the > >>> right name is, but this doesn't fsync so I don't think it shuld have > >>> fsync in the name. Maybe something like pg_advise_abandon() or > >>> pg_abandon_cache(). The current name is really wishful thinking: > >>> you're hoping that it will make the kernel start the fsync, but it > >>> might not. I think pg_start_data_flush() is similarly optimistic. > >> > >> What about: pg_fsync_prepare(). > > > > prepare_for_fsync()? > > It still seems mis-descriptive to me. Couldn't the same routine be > used simply to abandon undirtied data that we no longer care about > caching? For now it could - but it very well might be converted to sync_file_range or similar, which would have different "sideeffects".
As the potential code duplication is rather small I would prefer to describe the prime effect not the sideeffects... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
