Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:29 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.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?
> 
> 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.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 


-- 
      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/