Re: Re: synchronous_commit and synchronous_replication Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: synchronous_commit and synchronous_replication Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Date: 2011-04-05 08:31:10
Message-ID: 877hb914mp.fsf@hi-media-techno.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm.. I think that we reached the consensus about merging two GUCs
> in previous discussion. You argue that synchronization level should be
> controlled in separate two parameters?

No, sorry about confusion. One GUC is better. What I'm wondering is
why commit it *now*, because I think we didn't yet decide on what the
supported behaviors supported in 9.1 should be.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-04-05 08:33:02 Re: Re: synchronous_commit and synchronous_replication Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-04-05 08:24:23 Re: Transforming IN (...) to ORs, volatility