Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:29:31PM -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> 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.

Yep. In fact, remote_write I thought meant a remote write, while it
currently means a write to the remote. I like remote_accept.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +