Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)
Date: 2011-03-24 15:05:57
Message-ID: 24743.1300979157@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> +1 for either dropping it or making it work.

That's my feeling also. There is *no* reason that we can't add a column
to the status view later, and every probability that we will find
reasons other than this to do so. So if the column isn't going to
provide useful information in 9.1, let's just drop it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph Conway 2011-03-24 15:45:58 Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2011-03-24 13:45:14 Re: sync rep & fsync=off