On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> 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.
Okay, patch attached.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
