Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:52:40AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Well, yes, but in the sequence of:
> >> >>   remote_accept
> >> >>   remote_write
> >> >>   remote_sync
> >>
> >> it is much more clear...
> >>
> >> With a single "remote_write", you can't tell just by itself it that is
> >> intended to  be "it's a write *to* the remote", or "it's a write *by*
> >> the remote".  But when combined with other terms, only one makes sense
> >> in all cases.
> >
> > Yep.  In fact, remote_write I thought meant a remote write, while it
> > currently means a write to the remote.  I like remote_accept.
>
> The naming is not arbitrary. -1 to changing it as suggested.
>
> It is as Aidan says, a state between receive and fsync, normally
> referred to as write.

Let me point out that our documentation says nothing about it being
written to the kernel --- it just says "has received the commit record
of the transaction to memory."

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

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +