On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:02 Andres Freund wrote:
> On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:23:10 Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > >> This is turning into yet another one of those situations where
> > >> something simple and useful is being killed by trying to generalize
> > >> it way more than it needs to be, given its current goals and its lack
> > >> of external interfaces. There's no catversion bump or API breakage
> > >> to hinder future refactoring if this isn't optimally designed
> > >> internally from day one.
> > >
> > > I agree that it's too late in the cycle for any major redesign of the
> > > patch. But is it too much to ask to use a less confusing name for the
> > > function?
> >
> > +1. Let's just rename the thing, add some comments, and call it good.
>
> Will post a updated patch in the next hours unless somebody beats me too
> it.
Here we go.
I left the name at my suggestion pg_fsync_prepare instead of Tom's
prepare_for_fsync because it seemed more consistend with the naming in the
rest of the file. Obviously feel free to adjust.
I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the stable
branches - other opinions?
If wanted I can prepare patches for that.
Andres