From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 21:26:49 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batch disk flushes Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Johannes Schindelin writes: > It makes sense, but I would recommend using a more easily explained value > than `2`. Maybe `delayed`? Or `bulk` or `batched`? 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.