| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 15:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | 467BECCD.7000802@archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's wrong with synchronous_commit? It's accurate and simple.
>
> That is fine too.
My concern would be that it can be read two ways:
1. When you commit, sync (something or other - unspecified)
2. Synchronise commits (to each other? to something else?)*
It's obvious to people on the -hackers list what we're talking about,
but is it so clear to a newbie, perhaps non-English speaker?
* I can see people thinking this means something like "commit_delay".
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | teodor | 2007-06-22 15:46:12 | Re: tsearch in core patch |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2007-06-22 15:34:02 | Re: tsearch in core patch |