On 2014-08-19 08:21:10 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 08/19/2014 01:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > 2. I agree that it's not good to have this get controlled by a GUC. > > If the behavior change is big enough that it's going to break clients, > > adding a GUC isn't a sufficient remedy. If it's not, adding a GUC is > > unnecessary. > > There's plenty of agreement on "not a GUC" - but what about alternatives?
What's the problem with the COMMIT WITH (report_lsn on) I've proposed? Reporting the LSN in the command tag? Anything doing transparent failover needs to be aware of transaction boundaries anyway. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
