Re: Logging WAL when updating hintbit

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)huawei(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logging WAL when updating hintbit
Date: 2013-12-13 18:59:20
Message-ID: 20131213185920.GB9148@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:14:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm not totally satisfied with the name of the GUC, wal_log_hintbits.
>
> Me either; at the very least, it's short an underscore: wal_log_hint_bits
> would be more readable. But how about just "wal_log_hints"?

Is wal_log redundant (two "log"s)? How about wal_record_hit_bits?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-12-13 19:17:54 Re: "stuck spinlock"
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-12-13 18:57:14 Re: "stuck spinlock"