| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 08:44:09 |
| Message-ID: | 87aag5ytnq.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> What do you mean by "supported behaviors"?
Well, I'm thinking about Simon's patch that some decided on procedural
grounds only that it was too late to apply in 9.1, and some others were
saying that given the cost benefit ratio of such a small patch that the
design had already been agreed on, it is legible for 9.1.
I think that we just expressed opinions on the async|recv|fsync|apply
patch, and that we've yet to reach a consensus and make a decision.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-04-05 08:52:59 | Re: Proposal: q-gram GIN and GiST indexes |
| Previous Message | Masanori Yamazaki | 2011-04-05 08:42:56 | GSoC Proposal - Caching query results in pgpool-II |