On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > 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.
Okay, patch attached. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
synchronous_commit_doc_v1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
