On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 10:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 08:40:36AM -0400, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> > On 7/18/19 1:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Or more simply like that?
> > > "Note that while WAL will be flushed with this setting,
> > > pg_receivewal never applies it, so synchronous_commit must not be set
> > > to remote_apply if pg_receivewal is a synchronous standby, be it a
> > > member of a priority-based (FIRST) or a quorum-based (ANY) synchronous
> > > replication setup."
> >
> > Yeah, better.
>
> I was looking into committing that, and the part about
> synchronous_commit = on is not right. The location of the warning is
> also harder to catch for the reader, so instead let's move it to the
> top where we have an extra description for --synchronous. I am
> finishing with the attached that I would be fine to commit and
> back-patch as needed. Does that sound fine?
It was my first reaction too that this had better be at the top.
I'm happy with the patch as it is.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
