On 28.03.2011 16:11, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com>  wrote:
  It would feel at least as logical to control this in the standby.

Now you are being ridiculous. You've spoken strongly against this at
every single step of this journey.

I was thinking specifically about whether flush vs. write (vs. apply, maybe) here. It would make sense to set that in the standby. You might even want to set it differently on different standbys.

What I was strongly against is the action at a distance, where setting a GUC in a standby suddenly makes the master to wait for acks from that server. That's dangerous, but I don't see such danger in setting the level of synchronicity in the standby, once you've decided that it's a synchronous standby.

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.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

Reply via email to