On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:19:13PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 8:52 PM Paul Guo <guopa@vmware.com> wrote:
> > About the syncfs patch, my first impression on the guc name sync_after_crash
> > is that it is a boolean type. Not sure about other people's feeling. Do you guys think
> > It is better to rename it to a clearer name like sync_method_after_crash or others?
>
> Works for me. Here is a new version like that, also including the
> documentation change discussed with Fujii-san, and a couple of
> cosmetic changes.
Are we sure we want to use the word "crash" here? I don't remember
seeing it used anywhere else in our user interface. I guess it is
"crash recovery".
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
