Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:37:09PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 02:23:30PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Plus the word remote denotes it is on the standby, not the local master.
> > >
> > > So both words have specific meaning, and IMHO clear meaning.
> >
> > Clear to a postgres hacker, maybe. Not at *all* clear to our general users.
> >
> > The natural assumption is that "remote write" means that it's written to
> > disk on the remote. Which is not what it means.
>
> Right, and if we are wrapping beta tomorrow, it would be good for us to
> decide soon. We can always change it after beta, but sooner is better.

And I will take the blame for brining it up so near beta --- I only
realized when writing the release notes (which should be announced in a
few hours).

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +