Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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()? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
