Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

create_delta_layer: improve misleading TODO comment #4488

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 16, 2023
Merged

create_delta_layer: improve misleading TODO comment #4488

merged 3 commits into from
Jun 16, 2023

Conversation

problame
Copy link
Contributor

Context: #4441 (comment)

@problame problame requested review from skyzh and LizardWizzard June 13, 2023 13:29
@problame problame requested review from a team as code owners June 13, 2023 13:29
@problame problame requested review from fprasx and removed request for a team June 13, 2023 13:29
@problame problame mentioned this pull request Jun 13, 2023
Merged
@problame problame removed the request for review from fprasx June 13, 2023 13:34
skyzh
skyzh approved these changes Jun 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@skyzh skyzh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this with a single fsync in future refactors

I admit this is misleading... I intended to say "we can simply call virtual_file.fsync() instead of par_fsync" 🤣

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 13, 2023 •
edited
Loading

1016 tests run: 976 passed, 0 failed, 40 skipped (full report)

The comment gets automatically updated with the latest test results
cc419d1 at 2023-06-15T17:36:01.796Z :recycle:

@problame problame enabled auto-merge (squash) June 13, 2023 15:49
LizardWizzard
LizardWizzard reviewed Jun 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@LizardWizzard LizardWizzard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

WDYT if we just call fsync_path from par_fsync?

I intended to say "we can simply call virtual_file.fsync() instead of par_fsync"
+1

pageserver/src/tenant/timeline.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@problame
Copy link
Contributor Author

WDYT if we just call fsync_path from par_fsync?

You mean inline par_fsync by just calling fsync_path() on these len()==1 slices?

@problame problame merged commit 14d495a into main Jun 16, 2023
@problame problame deleted the problame/remove-confusing-comment-regarding-fsync branch June 16, 2023 11:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@LizardWizzard LizardWizzard LizardWizzard left review comments

@skyzh skyzh skyzh approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@problame @skyzh @LizardWizzard