On 9 May 2012 13:48, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> Let me point out that our documentation says nothing about it being >> written to the kernel --- it just says "has received the commit record >> of the transaction to memory." > > Maybe remote_receive would be better. If we're actually writing it > back to the kernel before acknowledging the commit, that seems like an > implementation defect more than anything else, since it does not - > AFAICS - provide any additional, useful guarantee.
It does provide an additional guarantee, but I accept you personally may not find that useful. If the docs don't describe it well enough, then we can change the docs. > Another thing I've been wondering is whether, perhaps, we ought to > keep synchronous_commit tri-valued: on/local/off, and have a separate > GUC for synchronous_replication_mode. It's a bit arbitrary that "on" > happens to mean remote fsync rather than remote write/receive. You mean the way it originally was? I would agree. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
