On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:04:46PM -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > It seems pretty confusing that synchronous_commit = 'remote_write' means > > write confirmed to the remote socket, not write to the file system. Is > > there no better term we could some up with? remote_pipe? > > remote_transfer? > > remote_accept? > > And then, I could envision (if it continues down this road): > off > local > remote_accept > remote_write > remote_sync > remote_apply (implies visible to new connections on the standby) > > Not saying all off these are necessarily worth it, but they are all > the various "stages" of WAL processing on the remote...
The _big_ problem with "write" is that we might need that someday to indicate some other kind of write, e.g. write to kernel, fsync to disk. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
