| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Date: | 2011-03-02 20:36:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1299098208.25659.164.camel@jd-desktop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 14:26 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > All I'm saying is that if we end up shipping without that
> > parameter (implying allow_standalone_primary=on), we need to call
> > the feature something else. The GUCs and code can probably stay as
> > it is, but we shouldn't use the term "synchronous replication" in
> > the documentation, and release notes and such.
>
> I think including "synchronous" is OK as long as it's properly
> qualified. Off-hand thoughts in no particular order:
>
> semi-synchronous
You mean asynchronous
> conditionally synchronous
You mean asynchronous
JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-02 20:39:08 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-02 20:29:06 | Re: Perl 5.12 complains about ecpg parser-hacking scripts |