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

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Isn't remote_write a really dumb name for that setting?
Date: 2012-08-22 17:07:13
Message-ID: 20120822170713.GA1166@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I didn't like remote_write either; see this thread:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00375.php

Yes, please, I would like it changed.

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

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-08-22 17:15:12 Re: Isn't remote_write a really dumb name for that setting?
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2012-08-22 17:06:16 Re: NOT NULL constraints in foreign tables