On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
