Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit
Date: 2007-06-25 08:16:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 10:01 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > synchronous_commit
> > Idea: Greg Stark
> > Supporters: Simon, Josh, Tom, Bruce, Florian
> There was one more:
> asynchronous_commit
> Idea: Florian G. Pflug
> Supporters: none
> But if you are calling the feature that (which imho is good), the guc
> might as well get that name.

Hmmm, so we have a choice of:

synchronous_commit = off
asynchronous_commit = on

For the latter, postgresql.conf would default to 
asynchronous_commit = off. 

Personally, I think the double negative is confusing for the normal
case. For me, the feature is turning off something that we normally
have, rather than actively initiating anything.

The feature is related to fsync = off, so it would be confusing to have
the switches work in opposite directions. Now I look, I see this would
make it the only parameter that turning it on removes something. All
other parameters are positive, e.g. enable_X = on

So, although its a knife edge decision, I'd say go with
synchronous_commit = off. 

  Simon Riggs             

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2007-06-25 08:20:59
Subject: Re: msvc and vista fun
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2007-06-25 08:14:08
Subject: Re: msvc and vista fun

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group