On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:04:46PM -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > It seems pretty confusing that synchronous_commit = 'remote_write' means
> > write confirmed to the remote socket, not write to the file system. Is
> > there no better term we could some up with? remote_pipe?
> > remote_transfer?
>
> remote_accept?
>
> And then, I could envision (if it continues down this road):
> off
> local
> remote_accept
> remote_write
> remote_sync
> remote_apply (implies visible to new connections on the standby)
>
> Not saying all off these are necessarily worth it, but they are all
> the various "stages" of WAL processing on the remote...
The _big_ problem with "write" is that we might need that someday to
indicate some other kind of write, e.g. write to kernel, fsync to disk.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
