On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 14:07 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote: > Speaking of a "synchronous commit" > is utterly misleading, because the commit itself is exactly the thing > that's *not* synchronous.
Not really sure where you're going here. "synchronous replication" is used exactly as described in the Wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_replication No two word phrase is going to accurately sum up the complexity and potential for data loss in these situations. DRBD saw that too and just called them A, B and C and then describe them more accurately. But I don't think we should say "PostgreSQL just implemented algorithm B" which is just unhelpful. I don't think its "marketing" to refer to it by the phrase most commonly used for the technology we are building. Nobody suggested we call it "wizrep" or suchlike... The docs can contain the exact description of data loss and timing windows. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
