On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm very excited about new options, especially recv. But I agree with > Robert and Heikki because what the patch provides looks like new > feature rather than bug fix. And I think that we still require some > discussions of the design; how far transactions must wait for sync > rep in recv mode? In the patch, they wait for WAL to be written in > the standby, but I think that they should wait until walreceiver has > recieved WAL instead. That would increase the performance of sync > rep. Anyway, I don't think now is time to discuss about such a design > except for bug fix. Not waiting for write would just be much less safe and would not have any purpose as a sync rep option. The difference in time would be very marginal also. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
