Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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 11:29:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:52:40AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Well, yes, but in the sequence of:
> >> >>   remote_accept
> >> >>   remote_write
> >> >>   remote_sync
> >>
> >> it is much more clear...
> >>
> >> With a single "remote_write", you can't tell just by itself it that is
> >> intended to  be "it's a write *to* the remote", or "it's a write *by*
> >> the remote".  But when combined with other terms, only one makes sense
> >> in all cases.
> >
> > Yep.  In fact, remote_write I thought meant a remote write, while it
> > currently means a write to the remote.  I like remote_accept.
> The naming is not arbitrary. -1 to changing it as suggested.
> It is as Aidan says, a state between receive and fsync, normally
> referred to as write.

Let me point out that our documentation says nothing about it being
written to the kernel --- it just says "has received the commit record
of the transaction to memory."

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: MauMauDate: 2012-05-09 12:10:07
Subject: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-05-09 07:52:40
Subject: Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group