From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |
Date: | 2012-06-28 17:57:10 |
Message-ID: | 4FEC9AF6.1080207@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.06.2012 15:18, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> 2. Should we rename the GUCs, since this patch will cause them to
>>> control WAL flush in general, as opposed to commit specifically?
>>> Peter Geoghegan and Simon were arguing that we should retitle it to
>>> group_commit_delay rather than just commit_delay, but that doesn't
>>> seem to be much of an improvement in describing what the new behavior
>>> will actually be, and I am doubtful that it is worth creating a naming
>>> incompatibility with previous releases for a cosmetic change. I
>>> suggested wal_flush_delay, but there's no consensus on that.
>>> Opinions?
>>
>> Again, leave the naming of that for later. The idea of a rename came
>> from yourself, IIRC.
>
> Deciding on a name is not such a hard thing that leaving it till later
> solves any problem. Let's just make a decision and be done with it.
FWIW, I think commit_delay is just fine. In practice, it's mostly
commits that are affected, anyway. If we try to be more exact, I think
it's just going to be more confusing to users.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-28 18:00:06 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-06-28 17:46:30 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |