| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS |
| Date: | 2009-12-10 15:53:36 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070912100753o61722638y92671d099d8a3a00@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I don't think IO is a terrible name for an option but I like BUFFERS
>> better. I don't think the BUFFERS/BLOCKS confusion is too bad, but
>> perhaps we could use BUFFERS in both places.
>
> I don't know how "blocks" got into here in the first place--this concept is
> "buffers" just about everywhere else already, right?
I think we have some places already in the system where we bounce back
and forth between those terms. I expect that's the reason.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2009-12-10 15:54:54 | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-10 15:52:51 | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS |