On 5/24/12 2:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 21 May 2012 19:10, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
