Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 21:47:51 -0600:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > I do wonder if the "to disk" threshold should be in the public
> > signature, but don't have offhand a use-case justifying that.
> We could, but I figured callers who needed finer-grain control over
> the size of the buffer would use the underlying private API which
> gives them that ability. And as I noted in the code, the choice of
> 100k was completely arbitrary, the result of a lot of squinting and
> hand waving. If somebody has better guestimates (Stefan F.?) as to
> what would be better, feel free to improve upon it.
FWIW, my point was that the caller (of this now-public API) may be able
to have a better guesstimate as they'd know the use-case, the number of
concurrent spillbuf objects, the typical length (`wc -c`) of the stream,
Received on 2012-01-20 05:02:53 CET