Hi
2014-07-30 10:22 GMT+02:00 Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp>: > (2014/07/29 0:58), Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at> >> wrote: >> >>> Shigeru Hanada wrote: >>> >>>> * Naming of new behavior >>>> You named this optimization "Direct Update", but I'm not sure that >>>> this is intuitive enough to express this behavior. I would like to >>>> hear opinions of native speakers. >>>> >>> >>> How about "batch foreign update" or "batch foreign modification"? >>> (Disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker either.) >>> >> >> I think direct update sounds pretty good. "Batch" does not sound as >> good to me, since it doesn't clearly describe what makes this patch >> special as opposed to some other grouping of updates that happens to >> produce a speedup. >> > > I agree with Robert on that point. > > Another term that might be used is "update pushdown", since we are >> pushing the whole update to the remote server instead of having the >> local server participate. Without looking at the patch, I don't have >> a strong opinion on whether that's better than "direct update" in this >> context. >> > > "Update Pushdown" is fine with me. > > If there are no objections of others, I'll change the name from "Direct > Update" to "Update Pushdown". > I like "Update Pushdown" - it is simple without other semantic Regards Pavel > > Thanks, > > Best regards, > Etsuro Fujita > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
