On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Tom Lane wrote:

What's wrong with synchronous_commit?  It's accurate and simple.

It's kind of a big word that not a lot of people understand the subtleties of, and I'd be concerned it will sow confusion with the terminology used for WAL synchronous writes.

When I explain to people the difference between transactions that have just been committed and written to disk (but possibly still sitting in a buffer) vs. ones that are known to have made it all the way through to the platters via fsync, the word I use is that the writes have been confirmed. If I were picking a GUC name to describe the current behavior I'd want to call it "confirmed_commit=on". I think people easily understand the idea that just because something wasn't confirmed, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, you just can't be sure--and therefore there's a possibility it could be lost.

* Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to