| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in pg_stat_replication view |
| Date: | 2018-12-04 02:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20181204021925.GM3423@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:28:15PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Yes, you are right. It should be "on" as "remote_flush" is not a valid
>> value. remote_flush is listed in SyncCommitLevel though, so this makes
>> me wonder if we should also introduce a new value for this purpose
>> available for users. The fix you propose looks good to me. Any
>> opinions from others?
>
> +1 for the patch.
Thanks for confirming, Thomas. I'll go apply hopefully tomorrow if
nobody has objections.
> As for introducing remote_flush as the true name of the level, this
> was discussed but somehow went off-course and never made it to the
> finish line:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D3FFaanSS4sugG%2BApzq2tCVjEYCO2wOQBod2d7GWb%3DDvA%40mail.gmail.com
Oh, I forgot this one. We may want to revive that... remote_flush is
more meaningful than on, especially since there are more and more
possible values for synchronous_commit.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maksim Milyutin | 2018-12-04 22:24:22 | Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in pg_stat_replication view |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-12-04 00:28:15 | Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in pg_stat_replication view |