Yeb Havinga <yebhavi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2011-03-02 21:26, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> >> I think including "synchronous" is OK as long as it's properly >> qualified. Off-hand thoughts in no particular order: >> >> semi-synchronous >> conditionally synchronous >> synchronous with automatic failover to standalone > It would be good to name the concept equal to how other DBMSses > call it, if they have a similar concept - don't know if Mysql's > semisynchronous replication is the same, but after a quick read it > sounds like it does. I had no idea MySQL used that terminology; it just seemed apt for describing a setup which is synchronous except when it isn't. Using the same terminology for equivalent functionality has its pluses, but might there be an trademark or other IP issues here? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
