On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
Okay, patch attached.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-04-17 19:30:39|
|Subject: Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2012-04-17 19:27:21|
|Subject: extension allocating shared memory|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2012-04-17 22:38:27|
|Subject: pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positionalargumen|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-04-17 13:37:14|
|Subject: pgsql: Don't wait for the commit record to be replicated if we wroteno|