Disk buffers #109
Disk buffers #109
Conversation
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #109 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 72.30% 72.00% -0.30%
==========================================
Files 75 78 +3
Lines 4538 5050 +512
==========================================
+ Hits 3281 3636 +355
- Misses 973 1056 +83
- Partials 284 358 +74
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
|
||
| | Field | Default | Description | | ||
| | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | `max_size` | `4294967296` (4GiB) | The maximum size of the disk buffer file in bytes | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although this is documented well here, it might be slightly clearer to call this max_bytes, since many users will only encounter this in a config file and would either have to make assumptions about the units, or dig up the docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I initially thought the same thing, but I would love to implement something like this as a future feature. Would it still make sense to do max_bytes if the value is 8GB?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good point. I guess it comes down to how likely we are to implement that feature and how soon it would happen. If we're going to end up living with the current implementation for a while, then I think we should consider using the more explicit term now and deprecating it later. We could pretty easily support both and just require at most one of the two be specified.
|
| defer d.Unlock() | ||
| defer func() { d.lastCompaction = time.Now() }() | ||
|
|
||
| // So how does this work? The goal here is to remove all flushed entries from disk, |
Description of Changes
Adds a disk buffer, a new memory buffer, and a flusher.
Things that could use specific review effort (obviously in addition to anything you'd like to add):
Trying to at least somewhat limit the scope, there are still a couple of features left undone:
Please check that the PR fulfills these requirements