On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:29:31PM -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > 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.
Yep. In fact, remote_write I thought meant a remote write, while it currently means a write to the remote. I like remote_accept. -- 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
