On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 2:38 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2022-Feb-11, Robert Haas wrote: > > > What I find difficult about doing that is that this is all a bunch of > > technical details that users may have difficulty understanding. If we > > say WAL_LOG or WAL_LOG_DATA, a reasonably but not incredibly > > well-informed user will assume that skipping WAL is not really an > > option. If we say CHECKPOINT, a reasonably but not incredibly > > well-informed user will presume they don't want one (I think). > > CHECKPOINT also seems like it's naming the switch by the unwanted side > > effect, which doesn't seem too flattering to the existing method. > > It seems you're thinking deciding what to do based on an option that > gets a boolean argument. But what about making the argument be an enum? > For example > > CREATE DATABASE ... WITH (STRATEGY = LOG); -- default if option is > omitted > CREATE DATABASE ... WITH (STRATEGY = CHECKPOINT); > > So the user has to think about it in terms of some strategy to choose, > rather than enabling or disabling some flag with nontrivial > implications.
Yeah I think being explicit about giving the strategy to the user looks like a better option. Now they can choose whether they want it to create using WAL log or using CHECKPOINT. Otherwise, if we give a flag then we will have to give an explanation that if they choose not to WAL log then we will have to do a checkpoint internally. So I think giving LOG vs CHECKPOINT as an explicit option looks better to me. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
