On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > First, we should be clear to explain that you are referring to the fact > that the request > synchronous_commit = off > synchronous_replication = on > makes no sense in the way the replication system is currently designed, > even though it is a wish-list item to make it work in 9.2+
What exactly do you mean by "make it work"? We can either (1) wait for the local commit and the remote commit (synchronous_commit=on, synchronous_replication=on), (2) wait for the local commit only (synchronous_commit=on, synchronous_replication=off), or (3) wait for neither (synchronous_commit=off, synchronous_replication=off). There's no fourth possible behavior, AFAICS. The question is whether synchronous_commit=off, synchronous_replication=on should behave like (1) or (3); AFAICS there's no fourth possible behavior. You have it as #1; I'm arguing it should be #3. I realize it's an arguable point; I'm just arguing for what makes most sense to me. -- 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
