Andres Freund <andres@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()?
regards, tom lane
