Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new replication mode synchronous_commit = 'write'.
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-04-13T17:15:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Add new replication mode synchronous_commit = 'write'.
- 443b4821f164 9.2.0 cited
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think that this would be a lot more clear if we described this as >>> synchronous_commit = remote_write rather than just synchronous_commit >>> = write. Actually, the internal constant is named that way already, >>> but it's not exposed as such to the user. >> >> That's something to discuss at the end of the CF when people are less >> busy and we get more input. >> >> It's an easy change whatever we decide to do. > > Added this to 9.2 Open Items. OK, so I think it's time to decide what we want to do here. In my view, remote_write seems a lot more clear than write (since someone might otherwise think we were talking about a local write) and it has the additional advantage of matching the internal naming convention - surely, if it's write to call it SYNCHRONOUS_COMMIT_REMOTE_WRITE inside the system, then there's not really much reason to drop the word "remote" on the user-visible side of things. However, I just work here. Does anyone want to make a counter-argument? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company