On 8/17/16 11:22 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
Hi hackers,
To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
"on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flush". But it's not
obvious how the backwards compatibility could work, ie how to keep the
people happy who use "local" vs "on" to control syncrep, and also the
people who use "off" vs "on" to control asynchronous commit on
single-node systems. Is there any sensible way to do that, or is it
not broken and I should pipe down, or is it just far too entrenched
and never going to change?
I'm wondering if we've hit the point where trying to put all of this in
a single GUC is a bad idea... changing that probably means a config
compatibility break, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing at
this point...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
