Re: synchronous_commit = remote_flush

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