| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics |
| Date: | 2007-06-22 15:06:30 |
| Message-ID: | 200706221506.l5MF6UL27821@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>>> 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?
>
> What's wrong with synchronous_commit? It's accurate and simple.
That is fine too.
--
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. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-06-22 15:08:44 | Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-06-22 15:03:28 | Re: tsearch in core patch |