Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-03-02 21:26, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> I think including "synchronous" is OK as long as it's properly
>> qualified. Off-hand thoughts in no particular order:
>>
>> semi-synchronous
>> conditionally synchronous
>> synchronous with automatic failover to standalone
> It would be good to name the concept equal to how other DBMSses
> call it, if they have a similar concept - don't know if Mysql's
> semisynchronous replication is the same, but after a quick read it
> sounds like it does.
I had no idea MySQL used that terminology; it just seemed apt for
describing a setup which is synchronous except when it isn't. Using
the same terminology for equivalent functionality has its pluses,
but might there be an trademark or other IP issues here?
-Kevin
