Hi, On 2023-01-11 14:38:34 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:58:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > Some ideas: > > > > USE_RING_BUFFERS on|off > > REUSE_BUFFERS on|off > > +1 for either of these.
Then I'd go for REUSE_BUFFERS. What made you prefer it over LIMIT_BUFFER_USAGE? USE_BUFFER_ACCESS_STRATEGY would be a name tied to the implementation that's not awful, I think.. > I don't think it's an issue to expose implementation details here. > Anyone who wants to change this will know about the implementation > details that they're changing, and it's better to refer to it by the > same/similar name and not by some other name that's hard to find. A ringbuffer could refer to a lot of things other than something limiting buffer usage, that's why I don't like it. > BTW I can't see that the ring buffer is currently exposed in any > user-facing docs for COPY/ALTER/VACUUM/CREATE ? Yea, there's surprisingly little in the docs about it, given how much it influences behaviour. It's mentioned in tablesample-method.sgml, but without explanation - and it's a page documenting C API... Greetings, Andres Freund
