| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write |
| Date: | 2012-05-09 02:04:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAC_2qU_yBHJ76JX1uJmq0tJqB3Z4DOkq4CeqRe5bMofvk+1+Eg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> It seems pretty confusing that synchronous_commit = 'remote_write' means
> write confirmed to the remote socket, not write to the file system. Is
> there no better term we could some up with? remote_pipe?
> remote_transfer?
remote_accept?
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...
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-09 02:09:15 | Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-05-09 01:37:14 | Readme of Buffer Management seems to have wrong sentence |