From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Draft release notes complete |
Date: | 2012-05-25 17:45:35 |
Message-ID: | 4FBFC53F.3040007@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/24/12 2:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 19:10, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely
>>> advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit "group commit" in
>>> release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new feature.
>>
>> First, shouldn't we be having this discussion on -advocacy?
>
> Well, no, because this is a specific discussion about release notes.
True, but there's also the question of what we call this in the
promotional materials.
> In any case, I've given up on the idea that we should market new group
> commit as "group commit". I believe that that would be a useful and
> fair way of representing the feature, but there doesn't seem to be any
> support for that view.
What else would you call it? What's wrong with "Better Group Commit"?
From my perspective, it's pretty simple: we had group commit before, but
the new group commit is much better.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey Koposov | 2012-05-25 17:55:19 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-25 17:41:24 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |