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.
