Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1182759386.9276.463.camel@silverbirch.site обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Winner of naming discussions: Synchronous Commit
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 10:01 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > synchronous_commit > > Idea: Greg Stark > > Supporters: Simon, Josh, Tom, Bruce, Florian > > There was one more: > asynchronous_commit > Idea: Florian G. Pflug > Supporters: none > > But if you are calling the feature that (which imho is good), the guc > might as well get that name. Hmmm, so we have a choice of: synchronous_commit = off asynchronous_commit = on For the latter, postgresql.conf would default to asynchronous_commit = off. Personally, I think the double negative is confusing for the normal case. For me, the feature is turning off something that we normally have, rather than actively initiating anything. The feature is related to fsync = off, so it would be confusing to have the switches work in opposite directions. Now I look, I see this would make it the only parameter that turning it on removes something. All other parameters are positive, e.g. enable_X = on So, although its a knife edge decision, I'd say go with synchronous_commit = off. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: