On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:52 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I guess that dropping the support of #3 doesn't reduce complexity
> since the code of #3 is almost the same as that of #2. Like
> walreceiver sends the ACK after receiving the WAL in #2 case, it has
> only to do the same thing after the WAL flush.
Hmm, well the code for #3 is similar also to the code for #4. So if you
do #2, its easy to do #2, #3 and #4 together.
The comment is about whether having #3 makes sense from a user interface
perspective. It's easy to add options, but they must have useful
meaning.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
