On 7/5/21 11:46 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:43 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
>>> On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> However, I think we should also give serious consideration to
>>>> "debug_clobber_cache" or "debug_clobber_cache_always" for continuity
>>>> with past practice (though it still feels like "always" is a good
>>>> word to lose now). "debug_clobber_caches" is another reasonable
>>>> variant.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clobbering refers to cases where storage had no
>>> changes to its accessibility but now contains different data. That doesn't
>>> match InvalidateSystemCaches() especially well, so I think dropping that word
>>> has been a good step. Some other shorter terms could be debug_flush_caches,
>>> debug_rebuild_caches, or debug_expire_caches. (debug_caches is tempting, but
>>> that may ensnare folks looking for extra logging rather than a big slowdown.)
>> I like "debug_flush_caches" --- it's short and accurate.
> Do we always flush the cache entries into the disk? Sometimes we just
> invalidate the cache entries in the registered invalidation callbacks,
> right? Since we already use the term "clobber" in the user visible
> config option --clobber-cache, isn't it consistent to use
> debug_clobber_caches?
>
I think 'flush' here means simply 'discard'. Maybe that would be a
better word to use.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
