Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:52 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > I guess that dropping the support of #3 doesn't reduce complexity > > since the code of #3 is almost the same as that of #2. Like > > walreceiver sends the ACK after receiving the WAL in #2 case, it has > > only to do the same thing after the WAL flush. > > Hmm, well the code for #3 is similar also to the code for #4. So if you > do #2, its easy to do #2, #3 and #4 together. > > The comment is about whether having #3 makes sense from a user interface > perspective. It's easy to add options, but they must have useful > meaning.
If the slave is runing read-only queries, #3 is the most reliable option withouth delaying the slave, so there is a usecase for #3. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
