Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
- Cc: "Joshua D. 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: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:01:02 -0400
- Message-id: <22334(dot)1182524462(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>> 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? >> >> recovery is a bad word I think. It is related too closely to failure. > commit_stability? reliable_commit? What's wrong with synchronous_commit? It's accurate and simple. regards, tom lane
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- From: Greg Smith
- Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- References:
- Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- Prev by Date: Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- Next by Date: Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- Previous by thread: Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- Next by thread: Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics
- Indexes: