Comment 4 for bug 695906

Currently, in innodb source code,

The buffer is called "insert/delete buffer" changed from "insert buffer",
so, "ibuf" is not so strange to use still.

Then the function of the buffer is changed to "change buffering" from "insert buffering",
and it buffers "insert", "delete" and "purge".

So, I meant "purge" is only one of the objective and not suitable for naming of the variables.

The name "ibuf" is suitable still.

And if you don't like "contract", how about to use "merge"?
The buffer is used as the particle from the mother index until the contents affect to the index.
"merge" is used several comments in InnoDB source code.

In the end, my concessions are...
 innodb_ibuf_merge_rate
 innodb_ibuf_active_merge
 innodb_ibuf_max_size

only.

-----
Next, about innodb_pass_corrupt_table.

For the RDBMS with ACID, the data corruption should not be allowed at all.
So, even if only 1 corruption detected, RDBMS should stop not to corrupt any more.

So, the users "should not" accept the pass through the any corruption as normal and justice.
The passing is really irregular and abnormal as RDBMS ideally.

Your suggestion seems to give the users the impression as "passing is normal behavior".
It should be abnormal and irregular impression as its name.

I don't like to accept the suggestion and don't recommend to break data and InnoDB.