On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:52:40AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> Well, yes, but in the sequence of: > >> >> remote_accept > >> >> remote_write > >> >> remote_sync > >> > >> it is much more clear... > >> > >> With a single "remote_write", you can't tell just by itself it that is > >> intended to be "it's a write *to* the remote", or "it's a write *by* > >> the remote". But when combined with other terms, only one makes sense > >> in all cases. > > > > Yep. In fact, remote_write I thought meant a remote write, while it > > currently means a write to the remote. I like remote_accept. > > The naming is not arbitrary. -1 to changing it as suggested. > > It is as Aidan says, a state between receive and fsync, normally > referred to as write.
Let me point out that our documentation says nothing about it being written to the kernel --- it just says "has received the commit record of the transaction to memory." -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
