At Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:13:43 -0800, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote in > On 2023-02-14 10:05:40 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > What do you think about the need for explicitly specifying the > > default? I'm fine with specifying the default using a single word, > > such as WAIT_FOR_REMOTE_FLUSH. > > We obviously shouldn't force the option to be present. Why would we want to > break existing clients unnecessarily? Without it the behaviour should be > unchanged from today's.
I didn't suggest making the option mandatory. I just suggested providing a way to specify the default value explicitly, like in the recent commit 746915c686. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
