Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> writes: > Sorry for answering such an old mail, but what is the purpose of > a transaction level synchronous behaviour if async transactions > can be held back by a sync transaction?
I don't understand why it would be the case (sync holding back async transactions) — it's been proposed that walsender could periodically feed back to the master the current WAL position received, synced and applied. So you can register your sync transaction to wait (and block) until walsender sees a synced WAL position after your own (including it) and another transaction can wait until walsender sees a received WAL position after its own, for example. Of course, meanwhile, any async transaction would just commit without caring about slaves. Not implementing it nor thinking about how to implement it, it seems simple enough :) Regards, -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
