synchronous_commit = remote_flush

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: synchronous_commit = remote_flush
Date: 2016-08-18 04:22:06
Message-ID: CAEepm=3FFaanSS4sugG+Apzq2tCVjEYCO2wOQBod2d7GWb=DvA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi hackers,

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?

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-08-18 05:00:49 Re: How to do failover in pglogical replication?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-08-18 03:18:38 Re: Increasing timeout of poll_query_until for TAP tests