On 28.06.2012 15:18, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
2. Should we rename the GUCs, since this patch will cause them to
control WAL flush in general, as opposed to commit specifically?
Peter Geoghegan and Simon were arguing that we should retitle it to
group_commit_delay rather than just commit_delay, but that doesn't
seem to be much of an improvement in describing what the new behavior
will actually be, and I am doubtful that it is worth creating a naming
incompatibility with previous releases for a cosmetic change. I
suggested wal_flush_delay, but there's no consensus on that.
Opinions?
Again, leave the naming of that for later. The idea of a rename came
from yourself, IIRC.
Deciding on a name is not such a hard thing that leaving it till later
solves any problem. Let's just make a decision and be done with it.
FWIW, I think commit_delay is just fine. In practice, it's mostly
commits that are affected, anyway. If we try to be more exact, I think
it's just going to be more confusing to users.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
