Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
Date: 2007-06-22 13:29:43
Message-ID: 871wg4p16g.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"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.

Hm, another possibility: "synchronous_commit = off"

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-06-22 13:34:09 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-06-22 13:29:38 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent