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. +
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" |