Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics

[Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>]

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?

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?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +