Isn't remote_write a really dumb name for that setting?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Isn't remote_write a really dumb name for that setting?
Дата
Msg-id 17704.1345654864@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Isn't remote_write a really dumb name for that setting?
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
AFAICT, the remote_write setting for synchronous_commit is named exactly
backwards, because the point of the setting is that it *doesn't* wait
for the remote to write anything.

As an alternative I suggest "remote_receive".  Perhaps somebody else
has a better idea?
        regards, tom lane

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Mathieu Fenniak
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: restartpoints stop generating on streaming replication slave
Следующее
От: Jeff Davis
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: NOT NULL constraints in foreign tables