On 13 April 2012 19:15, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> In my view, remote_write seems a lot more clear than write
> I sure didn't understand it to mean remote_write when I read the
> subject line.
Whatever this option value is named, it needs to be referenced in the
postgresql.conf comment for this option, as it isn't currently.
I have a question though. What happens when this is set to "write"
(or "remote_write" as proposed) but it's being used on a standalone
primary? At the moment it's not documented what level of guarantee
this would provide.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-04-13 19:21:48|
|Subject: Re: PREPARE TRANSACTION compatibility?|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-04-13 19:15:28|
|Subject: Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Guillaume Lelarge||Date: 2012-04-13 19:57:58|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new replication mode synchronous_commit
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-04-13 18:39:16|
|Subject: pgsql: Rename bytea_agg to string_agg and add delimiter argument|