Re: synchronous_commit = remote_flush

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
> "on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flush". But it's not
> obvious how the backwards compatibility could work, ie how to keep the
> people happy who use "local" vs "on" to control syncrep, and also the
> people who use "off" vs "on" to control asynchronous commit on
> single-node systems. Is there any sensible way to do that, or is it
> not broken and I should pipe down, or is it just far too entrenched
> and never going to change?

I don't see why we can't add "remote_flush" as a synonym for "on". Do
you have something else in mind?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company