Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 21:47:51 -0600: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > > I do wonder if the "to disk" threshold should be in the public > > signature, but don't have offhand a use-case justifying that. > > We could, but I figured callers who needed finer-grain control over > the size of the buffer would use the underlying private API which > gives them that ability. And as I noted in the code, the choice of > 100k was completely arbitrary, the result of a lot of squinting and > hand waving. If somebody has better guestimates (Stefan F.?) as to > what would be better, feel free to improve upon it.
FWIW, my point was that the caller (of this now-public API) may be able to have a better guesstimate as they'd know the use-case, the number of concurrent spillbuf objects, the typical length (`wc -c`) of the stream, etc.
