On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> 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.
Well, yes, but in the sequence of:
>> remote_accept
>> remote_write
>> remote_sync
it is much more clear...
With a single "remote_write", you can't tell just by itself it that is
intended to be "it's a write *to* the remote", or "it's a write *by*
the remote". But when combined with other terms, only one makes sense
in all cases.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
