On 15 May 2012 17:51, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> More accurately, he seems to have thought that group commit was
> already there, and he'd improved it. So saying that we're getting it
> for the first time ten years later seems pretty odd to me.
Maybe it's odd, and maybe it's inconsistent with earlier terminology
that was privately used, and maybe I'm just plain wrong. Nevertheless,
it is my position that:
1. Group commit isn't a rigorously defined term, which sure is
apparent by our confusion. So even if you're right, that's only by
virtue of a precedent being set regarding the terminology, for which
there could just as easily have been another precedent without there
having to be substantive differences to the code, had things happened
to go that way.
2. Group commit is associated in people's minds with results that look
much like the results we can now show. It is my understanding that we
couldn't show improvements like this before. So while group commit
isn't rigorously defined, people have a certain vague set of
expectations about it that we previously basically failed to meet.
For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely
advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit "group commit" in
release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new feature.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
