Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:29 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > >>> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? > > recovery is a bad word I think. It is related too closely to failure.
commit_stability? reliable_commit? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
