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

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I didn't like remote_write either;  see this thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00375.php

Yes, please, I would like it changed.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +