On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 10/07/2010 06:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> Yes, let's please just implement something simple and get it >> committed. k = 1. Two GUCs (synchronous_standbys = name, name, name >> and synchronous_waitfor = none|recv|fsync|apply), SUSET so you can >> change it per txn. Done. We can revise it *the day after it's >> committed* if we agree on how. And if we*don't* agree, then we can >> ship it and we still win. > > If we have all this code, and it appears that we do, +1 to commit it now so > that we can start testing.
To the best of my knowledge we don't have exactly that thing, but it seems like either of the two patches on the table could probably be beaten into that shape with a large mallet in fairly short order, and I think we should pick one of them and do just that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
