| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics |
| Date: | 2007-06-22 17:30:54 |
| Message-ID: | 24148.1182533454@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What's wrong with synchronous_commit? It's accurate and simple.
> My concern would be that it can be read two ways:
> 1. When you commit, sync (something or other - unspecified)
> 2. Synchronise commits (to each other? to something else?)*
Well, that's a fair point. deferred_commit would avoid that objection.
I'm not sure it's real important though --- with practically all of the
postgresql.conf variables, you really need to read the manual to know
exactly what they do.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-06-22 20:57:21 | Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-22 16:38:14 | Re: tsearch in core patch |