On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:19:13PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 8:52 PM Paul Guo <gu...@vmware.com> wrote: > > About the syncfs patch, my first impression on the guc name sync_after_crash > > is that it is a boolean type. Not sure about other people's feeling. Do you > > guys think > > It is better to rename it to a clearer name like sync_method_after_crash or > > others? > > Works for me. Here is a new version like that, also including the > documentation change discussed with Fujii-san, and a couple of > cosmetic changes.
Are we sure we want to use the word "crash" here? I don't remember seeing it used anywhere else in our user interface. I guess it is "crash recovery". -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
