Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think everyone agrees the current code is unusable, per Heikki's > comment about a WAL file arriving after a period of no WAL > activity I don't. I am curious to hear how many complaints we've had from alpha and beta testers of HS regarding this issue. I know that if we used it with our software, the issue would probably go unnoticed because of our usage patterns and automatic query retry. A positive setting would work as intended for us. I can think of pessimal usage patterns, different software approaches, and/or goals for HS usage which would conflict badly with a positive setting. Hopefully we can document this area better than we've historically done with, for example, fsync -- which has similar trade-offs, only with more dire consequences for bad user choices. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
