synchronous_commit = remote_flush - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject synchronous_commit = remote_flush
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=3FFaanSS4sugG+Apzq2tCVjEYCO2wOQBod2d7GWb=DvA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: synchronous_commit = remote_flush  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Re: synchronous_commit = remote_flush  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi hackers,

To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
"on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flush".  But it's not
obvious how the backwards compatibility could work, ie how to keep the
people happy who use "local" vs "on" to control syncrep, and also the
people who use "off" vs "on" to control asynchronous commit on
single-node systems.  Is there any sensible way to do that, or is it
not broken and I should pipe down, or is it just far too entrenched
and never going to change?

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Increasing timeout of poll_query_until for TAP tests
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: How to do failover in pglogical replication?