On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:52:40AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Well, yes, but in the sequence of:
> >> >> remote_accept
> >> >> remote_write
> >> >> remote_sync
> >> it is much more clear...
> >> With a single "remote_write", you can't tell just by itself it that is
> >> intended to be "it's a write *to* the remote", or "it's a write *by*
> >> the remote". But when combined with other terms, only one makes sense
> >> in all cases.
> > Yep. In fact, remote_write I thought meant a remote write, while it
> > currently means a write to the remote. I like remote_accept.
> The naming is not arbitrary. -1 to changing it as suggested.
> It is as Aidan says, a state between receive and fsync, normally
> referred to as write.
Let me point out that our documentation says nothing about it being
written to the kernel --- it just says "has received the commit record
of the transaction to memory."
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: MauMau||Date: 2012-05-09 12:10:07|
|Subject: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-05-09 07:52:40|
|Subject: Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write|