On 28.03.2011 16:11, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> It would feel at least as logical to control this in the standby.
>
> Now you are being ridiculous. You've spoken strongly against this at
> every single step of this journey.
I was thinking specifically about whether flush vs. write (vs. apply,
maybe) here. It would make sense to set that in the standby. You might
even want to set it differently on different standbys.
What I was strongly against is the action at a distance, where setting a
GUC in a standby suddenly makes the master to wait for acks from that
server. That's dangerous, but I don't see such danger in setting the
level of synchronicity in the standby, once you've decided that it's a
synchronous standby.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
