| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write |
| Date: | 2012-05-09 16:42:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYkWdc_WiZt-V1QOtNGmQANXObgEQJF8rFfyaK09WOeOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Another thing I've been wondering is whether, perhaps, we ought to
>> keep synchronous_commit tri-valued: on/local/off, and have a separate
>> GUC for synchronous_replication_mode. It's a bit arbitrary that "on"
>> happens to mean remote fsync rather than remote write/receive.
>
> You mean the way it originally was? I would agree.
No. The original design for sync rep had synchronous_commit with only
TWO values, on and off. I think the design we eventually settled on,
with three values, was better, and I'm in favor of keeping it.
However, there might be some virtue in separating the knob that
controls whether we do sync rep from the knob that controls which kind
of sync rep we do. I'm not sure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-05-09 16:59:39 | Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-09 16:13:28 | Re: age(xid) on hot standby |