On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Kristian Nielsen
I agree that "groupcommit" is rather too technical. However, "following_master" is too generic, it doesn't say anything.
It means that the degree of parallelization on the slave is following the degree of parallelization on the master. If more threads are executed (commited, strictly speaking) in parallel on master - more threads can be commited in parallel on the slave. If the master is strictly single-threaded, there's only one connection doing changes - the slave will follow that and will serialize all transactions too.
Right. Let's go with your "following_master".
I'd say "following_master" will be very confusing, because degree of parallelization on slave won't match degree of parallelization on master in this case. Just because some commits are in different commit groups on master doesn't mean that they were executed consecutively. They may start executing at the same time, have a long execution in parallel, but be committed a few milliseconds apart and thus end up in different groups. Such commits will be executed consecutively on slave and that will take much more time combined. So it can be hardly called "following master". "follow_commits" could be more appropriate.