On 28 June 2012 22:22, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: > All in all, I don't think this can be a very productive discussion > unless someone just pitches a equal or better name overall in terms of > conciseness and descriptiveness. I'd rather optimize for those > attributes. Old advice is old; that's the nature of the beast.
Robert suggested wal_flush_delay, which does more accurately describe what happens now. Old advice is old, but we frequently go to reasonable lengths to protect users from making predictable mistakes. The position that we shouldn't change the name might make sense if there was any downside to doing so, but there isn't. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
