On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
>> 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. Well, yes, but in the sequence of: >> remote_accept >> remote_write >> remote_sync it is much more clear... With a single "remote_write", you can't tell just by itself it that is intended to be "it's a write *to* the remote", or "it's a write *by* the remote". But when combined with other terms, only one makes sense in all cases. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
