Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:34:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> I like debug_discard_caches best.
>> I can live with that. Anyone strongly against it?
> I like it.
Hearing no votes against, here's a proposed patch for that.
(This is for HEAD; I expec
On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:34:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Fair point. What do you think of the alternative proposals
> >> "debug_flush_caches", "debug_discard_caches", etc?
>
> > I like debug_discard_caches best.
>
On 2021-Jul-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Fair point. What do you think of the alternative proposals
> >> "debug_flush_caches", "debug_discard_caches", etc?
>
> > I like debug_discard_caches best.
>
> I can live with that.
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fair point. What do you think of the alternative proposals
>> "debug_flush_caches", "debug_discard_caches", etc?
> I like debug_discard_caches best.
I can live with that. Anyone strongly against it?
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:17 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > The clobbering doesn't actually happen unless you turn on
> > CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY, so it would be good to keep that separate.
>
> Fair point. What do you think of the alternative proposals
> "debug_flush_caches", "de
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> The clobbering doesn't actually happen unless you turn on
> CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY, so it would be good to keep that separate.
Fair point. What do you think of the alternative proposals
"debug_flush_caches", "debug_discard_caches", etc?
regards,
On 04.07.21 22:27, Tom Lane wrote:
I do agree with the "debug_" prefix given that it's now visible to
users. However, it doesn't seem that hard to save some space in
the rest of the name. The word "system" is adding nothing of value,
and the word "always" seems rather confusing --- if it does
s
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 7/5/21 11:46 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I like "debug_flush_caches" --- it's short and accurate.
>> Do we always flush the cache entries into the disk? Sometimes we just
>> invalidate the cache entries in the re
On 7/5/21 11:46 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Noah Misch writes:
>>> On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
However, I think we should also give serious consideration to
"debug_clobber_cache" or "debug_clobber_cach
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> However, I think we should also give serious consideration to
> >> "debug_clobber_cache" or "debug_clobber_cache_always" for continuity
> >> with past practice
Noah Misch writes:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, I think we should also give serious consideration to
>> "debug_clobber_cache" or "debug_clobber_cache_always" for continuity
>> with past practice (though it still feels like "always" is a good
>> word to lo
On 7/4/21 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As I've been poking around in this area, I find myself growing
> increasingly annoyed at the new GUC name
> "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always". It is too d*mn long.
> It's a serious pain to type in any context where you don't have
> autocomplete to help
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> As I've been poking around in this area, I find myself growing
> increasingly annoyed at the new GUC name
> "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always". It is too d*mn long.
> It's a serious pain to type in any context where you don't have
> autocomp
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:57 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> As I've been poking around in this area, I find myself growing
> increasingly annoyed at the new GUC name
> "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always". It is too d*mn long.
> It's a serious pain to type in any context where you don't have
> autocomp
At Sun, 4 Jul 2021 14:12:34 -0700, Noah Misch wrote in
> > However, I think we should also give serious consideration to
> > "debug_clobber_cache" or "debug_clobber_cache_always" for continuity
> > with past practice (though it still feels like "always" is a good
> > word to lose now). "debug_cl
On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> and the word "always" seems rather confusing --- if it does
> something "always", why is there more than one level? So a simple
> proposal is to rename it to "debug_invalidate_caches".
+1 to remove "always"
--
Justin
On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 04:27:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> As I've been poking around in this area, I find myself growing
> increasingly annoyed at the new GUC name
> "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always". It is too d*mn long.
> It's a serious pain to type in any context where you don't have
>
As I've been poking around in this area, I find myself growing
increasingly annoyed at the new GUC name
"debug_invalidate_system_caches_always". It is too d*mn long.
It's a serious pain to type in any context where you don't have
autocomplete to help you. I've kept referring to this type of
testi
18 matches
Mail list logo
