|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: pg_receivewal documentation|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 08:40:36AM -0400, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> On 7/18/19 1:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Or more simply like that?
>> "Note that while WAL will be flushed with this setting,
>> pg_receivewal never applies it, so synchronous_commit must not be set
>> to remote_apply if pg_receivewal is a synchronous standby, be it a
>> member of a priority-based (FIRST) or a quorum-based (ANY) synchronous
>> replication setup."
> Yeah, better.
I was looking into committing that, and the part about
synchronous_commit = on is not right. The location of the warning is
also harder to catch for the reader, so instead let's move it to the
top where we have an extra description for --synchronous. I am
finishing with the attached that I would be fine to commit and
back-patch as needed. Does that sound fine?
|Next Message||David Rowley||2019-07-19 01:54:59||Re: Tid scan improvements|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2019-07-19 01:09:03||Re: pg_receivewal documentation|