On 16 April 2012 17:21, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> No, that's not what I was referring to. If you don't have a standby >> (i.e. a single, isolated database cluster with no replication), and >> its synchronous_commit is set to 'remote_write', what effect does that >> have? > > It's the same effect as 'on' and 'local' do, i.e., transaction commit waits > for only local WAL flush. This behavior is not documented explicitly... > How should we change the document? What about adding the following > into the explanation of synchronous_commit parameter (maybe the end > of second paragraph of that)? > > ----------------- > If synchronous_standby_names is not set, on, remote_write and local > provide the same synchronization level; transaction commit only waits for > local flush. > -----------------
Yes, that sounds fine. -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
