On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? >
+1 for adding "remote_flush" as a synonym for "on". It doesn't break backward compatibility. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
