Isn't remote_write a really dumb name for that setting?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Isn't remote_write a really dumb name for that setting?
Date: 2012-08-22 17:01:04
Message-ID: 17704.1345654864@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

AFAICT, the remote_write setting for synchronous_commit is named exactly
backwards, because the point of the setting is that it *doesn't* wait
for the remote to write anything.

As an alternative I suggest "remote_receive". Perhaps somebody else
has a better idea?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2012-08-22 17:06:16 Re: NOT NULL constraints in foreign tables
Previous Message Mathieu Fenniak 2012-08-22 15:48:49 Re: restartpoints stop generating on streaming replication slave