Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-07-02T14:32:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 28 June 2012 22:22, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
>>> All in all, I don't think this can be a very productive discussion
>>> unless someone just pitches a equal or better name overall in terms of
>>> conciseness and descriptiveness.  I'd rather optimize for those
>>> attributes.  Old advice is old; that's the nature of the beast.
>>
>> Robert suggested wal_flush_delay, which does more accurately describe
>> what happens now.
>
> Well, I learned something from reading this name, having not followed
> the mechanism too closely.  I like it.

I've committed this now.  In the absence of a clear consensus to
rename the GUC, I contented myself with a further overhaul of the
documentation, which will hopefully make things clear at least for
people who read the documentation.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company