From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:58:34 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] wal: separate checkpoint and flush paths Message-ID: <20181126175834.GF7839@chai> References: <5ba6de6392cadfc93d0399de4a56c4401317b035.1543152574.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5ba6de6392cadfc93d0399de4a56c4401317b035.1543152574.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-ID: * Vladimir Davydov [18/11/26 10:27]: > Currently, wal_checkpoint() is used for two purposes. First, to make a > checkpoint (rotate = true). Second, to flush all pending WAL requests > (rotate = false). Since checkpointing has to fail if cascading rollback > is in progress so does flushing. This is confusing. Let's separate the > two paths. I agree with the two paths, but wal_flush() as a name is confusing, since no flushing is happening. Let's call it wal_sync() or wal_wait() or something similar. wal_checkpoint() could also be made more obvious and renamed to wal_rotate(). The patch is otherwise trivial and OK to push. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32 http://tarantool.io - www.twitter.com/kostja_osipov