From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new replication mode synchronous_commit = 'write'. |
Date: | 2012-04-17 12:52:00 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv7NV-bAJ-u_knsg9BU16M=98WtCtU3ytdzzQd8Esb5s1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 16 April 2012 17:21, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> No, that's not what I was referring to. If you don't have a standby
>> (i.e. a single, isolated database cluster with no replication), and
>> its synchronous_commit is set to 'remote_write', what effect does that
>> have?
>
> It's the same effect as 'on' and 'local' do, i.e., transaction commit waits
> for only local WAL flush. This behavior is not documented explicitly...
> How should we change the document? What about adding the following
> into the explanation of synchronous_commit parameter (maybe the end
> of second paragraph of that)?
>
> -----------------
> If synchronous_standby_names is not set, on, remote_write and local
> provide the same synchronization level; transaction commit only waits for
> local flush.
> -----------------
Yes, that sounds fine.
--
Thom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-04-17 13:34:42 | pgsql: Don't wait for the commit record to be replicated if we wrote no |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-04-16 19:41:40 | pgsql: Add compatibility information for prepared transaction commands |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2012-04-17 13:12:48 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-04-17 12:38:59 | Re: [BUG] Checkpointer on hot standby runs without looking checkpoint_segments |