On 16 April 2012 17:21, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> No, that's not what I was referring to. If you don't have a standby
>> (i.e. a single, isolated database cluster with no replication), and
>> its synchronous_commit is set to 'remote_write', what effect does that
>> have?
>
> It's the same effect as 'on' and 'local' do, i.e., transaction commit waits
> for only local WAL flush. This behavior is not documented explicitly...
> How should we change the document? What about adding the following
> into the explanation of synchronous_commit parameter (maybe the end
> of second paragraph of that)?
>
> -----------------
> If synchronous_standby_names is not set, on, remote_write and local
> provide the same synchronization level; transaction commit only waits for
> local flush.
> -----------------
Yes, that sounds fine.
--
Thom
