Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>>> Hm, another possibility: "synchronous_commit = off"
> 
> >>>> Ooo, I like that. Any other takers?
> 
> >>> Yea, I like that too but I am now realizing that we are not really
> >>> deferring or delaying the "COMMIT" command but rather the recovery of
> >>> the commit.  GUC as full_commit_recovery?
> >> 
> >> recovery is a bad word I think. It is related too closely to failure.
> 
> > commit_stability?  reliable_commit?
> 
> What's wrong with synchronous_commit?  It's accurate and simple.

That is fine too.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +