On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:28:15PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> Yes, you are right. It should be "on" as "remote_flush" is not a valid >> value. remote_flush is listed in SyncCommitLevel though, so this makes >> me wonder if we should also introduce a new value for this purpose >> available for users. The fix you propose looks good to me. Any >> opinions from others? > > +1 for the patch.
Thanks for confirming, Thomas. I'll go apply hopefully tomorrow if nobody has objections. > As for introducing remote_flush as the true name of the level, this > was discussed but somehow went off-course and never made it to the > finish line: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D3FFaanSS4sugG%2BApzq2tCVjEYCO2wOQBod2d7GWb%3DDvA%40mail.gmail.com Oh, I forgot this one. We may want to revive that... remote_flush is more meaningful than on, especially since there are more and more possible values for synchronous_commit. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature