On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > 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 don't see why we can't add "remote_flush" as a synonym for "on". Do you have something else in mind? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
