At Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:13:43 -0800, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote in
> On 2023-02-14 10:05:40 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > What do you think about the need for explicitly specifying the
> > default? I'm fine with specifying the default using a single word,
> > such as WAIT_FOR_REMOTE_FLUSH.
>
> We obviously shouldn't force the option to be present. Why would we want to
> break existing clients unnecessarily? Without it the behaviour should be
> unchanged from today's.
I didn't suggest making the option mandatory. I just suggested
providing a way to specify the default value explicitly, like in the
recent commit 746915c686.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center