From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics |
Date: | 2007-06-23 20:25:06 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.64.0706231544410.1349@westnet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> What's wrong with synchronous_commit? It's accurate and simple.
It's kind of a big word that not a lot of people understand the subtleties
of, and I'd be concerned it will sow confusion with the terminology used
for WAL synchronous writes.
When I explain to people the difference between transactions that have
just been committed and written to disk (but possibly still sitting in a
buffer) vs. ones that are known to have made it all the way through to the
platters via fsync, the word I use is that the writes have been confirmed.
If I were picking a GUC name to describe the current behavior I'd want to
call it "confirmed_commit=on". I think people easily understand the idea
that just because something wasn't confirmed, that doesn't mean it didn't
happen, you just can't be sure--and therefore there's a possibility it
could be lost.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2007-06-23 22:23:19 | Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-23 20:09:36 | Re: fast stop before database system is ready |