| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | 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 08:21:54 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=QOO7+29rsKxA0F_6CiNtegG-UVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> The attached patch merges synchronous_replication into synchronous_commit.
>> Committed
>
> Without discussion? I would think that this patch is stepping on the
> other one toes and that maybe would need to make a decision about sync
> rep behavior before to commit this change.
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?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-04-05 08:24:23 | Re: Transforming IN (...) to ORs, volatility |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-04-05 07:53:22 | Re: Re: synchronous_commit and synchronous_replication Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |