| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-07-26 11:25:41 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimuqWh6-3D-H9ecoC0FFqMC51DLLfh4v6xgKXbm@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 7/26/10 1:44 PM +0300, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Yeb Havinga<yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wasn't entirely clear. My suggestion was to have only
>>>
>>> acknowledge_commit = {no|recv|fsync|replay}
>>>
>>> instead of
>>>
>>> replication_mode = {async|recv|fsync|replay}
>>
>> Okay, I'll change the patch accordingly.
>
> For what it's worth, I think replication_mode is a lot clearer.
> Acknowledge_commit sounds like it would do something similar to
> asynchronous_commit.
I agree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-07-26 11:50:26 | Re: bg worker: overview |
| Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2010-07-26 11:08:54 | Re: gincostestimate |