On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 28 June 2012 22:22, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>> All in all, I don't think this can be a very productive discussion
>>> unless someone just pitches a equal or better name overall in terms of
>>> conciseness and descriptiveness.  I'd rather optimize for those
>>> attributes.  Old advice is old; that's the nature of the beast.
>>
>> Robert suggested wal_flush_delay, which does more accurately describe
>> what happens now.
>
> Well, I learned something from reading this name, having not followed
> the mechanism too closely.  I like it.

I've committed this now.  In the absence of a clear consensus to
rename the GUC, I contented myself with a further overhaul of the
documentation, which will hopefully make things clear at least for
people who read the documentation.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) at 2012-06-28 22:01:51 from Daniel Farina

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2012-07-02 14:33:58
	Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed
Previous:	From: Peter Geoghegan	Date: 2012-07-02 14:19:56
	Subject: Re: enhanced error fields