Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics

[Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>]

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:29 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> > > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)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?
>
> I like "synchronous_commit = off", it even has a little girlfriend 
> getting spin while being accurate :)

Or perhaps "sync_on_commit = off"?
Less girlfriend-speak perhaps:"no_sync_on_commit = on"

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd