On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:09 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The only sensible settings are > > synchronous_commit = on, synchronous_replication = on > > synchronous_commit = on, synchronous_replication = off > > synchronous_commit = off, synchronous_replication = off > > > > This doesn't make any sense: (does it??) > > synchronous_commit = off, synchronous_replication = on > > If the standby replies before writing the WAL, that strategy can improve > the performance with moderate reliability, and sounds sensible.
Do you think it likely that your replication time is consistently and noticeably less than your time-to-disk? If not, you'll wait just as long but be less robust. I guess its possible. On a related thought: presumably we force a sync rep if forceSyncCommit is set? > IIRC, MySQL Cluster might use that strategy. Not the most convincing argument I've heard. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
