On 8 January 2014 21:40, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: >> I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but >> if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about >> what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or >> later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will >> lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is >> missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed. > > I'm for not caving. I think people who are asking for this don't > actually understand what they'd be getting.
Agreed. Just to be clear, I made this mistake initially. Now I realise Heikki was right and if you think about it long enough, you will too. If you still disagree, think hard, read the archives until you do. -- 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
