Re: [PATCH 2/2] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batch disk flushes

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

While we have less than 100% confidence in the implementation, it may make sense to have such a knob to choose between "do we fsync the old, known-safe but slow way, or do we fsync in batch" behaviours, and I agree that the knob should not be called cryptic "2".

But in a distant future when this new way of flushing proves to be stable, it would make sense if the enw behaviour were triggered by the plain vanilla 'true', no? In a sense, running fsync in a batch (or using syncfs) is an implementation detail of "we sync after writing out object files and before declaring success".

Thanks.