Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:29 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> untrustworthy disk hardware, for instance. I'd much rather use names
>>>>> derived from "deferred commit" or "delayed commit" or some such.
>>>> Honestly, I prefer these names as well as it seems directly related
>>>> versus
>>>> transaction guarantee which sounds to be more like us saying, if we
>>>> turn it off
>>>> our transactions are bogus.
>>
>> That was the intention..., but name change accepted.
>>
>>> Hm, another possibility: "synchronous_commit = off"
>>
>> Ooo, I like that. Any other takers?
>
> I like "synchronous_commit = off", it even has a little girlfriend
> getting spin while being accurate :)

Or perhaps "sync_on_commit = off"?
Less girlfriend-speak perhaps:"no_sync_on_commit = on"

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd