Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

>> And then, I could envision (if it continues down this road):
>>   off
>>   local
>>   remote_accept
>>   remote_write
>>   remote_sync
>>   remote_apply (implies visible to new connections on the standby)
>>
>> Not saying all off these are necessarily worth it, but they are all
>> the various "stages" of WAL processing on the remote...
>
> The _big_ problem with "write" is that we might need that someday to
> indicate some other kind of write, e.g. write to kernel, fsync to disk.

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.

--
Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca                                       command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/                                   work like a slave.