On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm very excited about new options, especially recv. But I agree with
> Robert and Heikki because what the patch provides looks like new
> feature rather than bug fix. And I think that we still require some
> discussions of the design; how far transactions must wait for sync
> rep in recv mode? In the patch, they wait for WAL to be written in
> the standby, but I think that they should wait until walreceiver has
> recieved WAL instead. That would increase the performance of sync
> rep. Anyway, I don't think now is time to discuss about such a design
> except for bug fix.
Not waiting for write would just be much less safe and would not have
any purpose as a sync rep option.
The difference in time would be very marginal also.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
