On 28.06.2012 15:18, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> 2. Should we rename the GUCs, since this patch will cause them to
>>> control WAL flush in general, as opposed to commit specifically?
>>> Peter Geoghegan and Simon were arguing that we should retitle it to
>>> group_commit_delay rather than just commit_delay, but that doesn't
>>> seem to be much of an improvement in describing what the new behavior
>>> will actually be, and I am doubtful that it is worth creating a naming
>>> incompatibility with previous releases for a cosmetic change. I
>>> suggested wal_flush_delay, but there's no consensus on that.
>>> Opinions?
>>
>> Again, leave the naming of that for later. The idea of a rename came
>> from yourself, IIRC.
>
> Deciding on a name is not such a hard thing that leaving it till later
> solves any problem. Let's just make a decision and be done with it.
FWIW, I think commit_delay is just fine. In practice, it's mostly
commits that are affected, anyway. If we try to be more exact, I think
it's just going to be more confusing to users.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
