>> I had idea to name old default as FSYNC, but it would be too scientific. So, then it can be FSYNC, SYNC, BACKGROUND and NONE!
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I had idea to name old default as FSYNC, but it would be too scientific. > > > > I like FSYNC, I do not think it is too scientific. Definitely not more > scientific than LOG_ONLY. > > For old DEFAULT, STRICT or STRICT_SYNC - IMO are best options, so I agree > > with Ivan. > > > > Not sure I like STRICT. In Linux world, fsync is a well known command which > does exactly what our FSYNC mode will do: > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fsync.2.html . STRICT, on the other > hand, is not a commonly understood term. Why create a new term to define > something that has already been defined? > > Also, what if tomorrow we need to add an even stricter parameter? Then we > are back to the same problem we are trying to fix right now. > > D. >
