| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_receivewal documentation |
| Date: | 2019-07-11 04:58:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20190711045806.GH4500@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:12:46PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Are you talking about the replication connection from pg_receivewal
> to the PostgreSQL server? That wouldn't do anything, because it is
> the setting of "synchronous_commit" for an independent client
> connection that is the problem:
Ditto. My previous message was wrong and you are right. You are
right that this had better be documented. I have no thought this ne
through completely.
> One alternative option I see is for pg_receivewal to confirm that
> it has applied the changes as soon as it flushed them.
> It would be cheating somewhat, but it would work around the problem
> in a way that few people would find surprising.
Yes, that's wrong as pg_receivewal applies nothing.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-07-11 05:14:31 | Re: warning to publication created and wal_level is not set to logical |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-07-11 04:53:04 | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |