Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:29 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> >>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> untrustworthy disk hardware, for instance. I'd much rather use names
> >>>>> derived from "deferred commit" or "delayed commit" or some such.
> >>>> Honestly, I prefer these names as well as it seems directly related versus
> >>>> transaction guarantee which sounds to be more like us saying, if we turn it off
> >>>> our transactions are bogus.
> >> That was the intention..., but name change accepted.
> >>
> >>> Hm, another possibility: "synchronous_commit = off"
> >> Ooo, I like that. Any other takers?
> >
> > Yea, I like that too but I am now realizing that we are not really
> > deferring or delaying the "COMMIT" command but rather the recovery of
> > the commit. GUC as full_commit_recovery?
>
> recovery is a bad word I think. It is related too closely to failure.

commit_stability? reliable_commit?

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

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +