On 16 April 2012 17:21, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> No, that's not what I was referring to. If you don't have a standby
>> (i.e. a single, isolated database cluster with no replication), and
>> its synchronous_commit is set to 'remote_write', what effect does that
> It's the same effect as 'on' and 'local' do, i.e., transaction commit waits
> for only local WAL flush. This behavior is not documented explicitly...
> How should we change the document? What about adding the following
> into the explanation of synchronous_commit parameter (maybe the end
> of second paragraph of that)?
> If synchronous_standby_names is not set, on, remote_write and local
> provide the same synchronization level; transaction commit only waits for
> local flush.
Yes, that sounds fine.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Atri Sharma||Date: 2012-04-17 13:12:48|
|Subject: Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application|
|Previous:||From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||Date: 2012-04-17 12:38:59|
|Subject: Re: [BUG] Checkpointer on hot standby runs without looking checkpoint_segments|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-04-17 13:34:42|
|Subject: pgsql: Don't wait for the commit record to be replicated if we wroteno|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-04-16 19:41:40|
|Subject: pgsql: Add compatibility information for prepared transaction commands|