Richard Huxton wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
What's wrong with synchronous_commit? It's accurate and simple.
That is fine too.
My concern would be that it can be read two ways:
1. When you commit, sync (something or other - unspecified)
2. Synchronise commits (to each other? to something else?)*
It's obvious to people on the -hackers list what we're talking about,
but is it so clear to a newbie, perhaps non-English speaker?
* I can see people thinking this means something like "commit_delay".
OTOH, the concept of synchronous vs. asynchronous (function) calls
should be pretty well-known among database programmers and administrators.
And (at least to me), this is really what this is about - the commit
happens asynchronously, at the convenience of the database, and not
the instant that I requested it.
greetings, Florian Pflug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
