On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > I admit to not having followed the discussion around the new mode for > synchronous_commit very closely, so my apologies if this has been > discussed and dismiseed - I blame failing to find it int he archives > ;) > > My understanding from looking at the docs is that > synchronous_commit=remote_write will always imply a *local* commit as > well. > > Is there any way to set the system up to do a write to the remote, > ensure it's in memory of the remote (remote_write mode, not full sync > to disk), but *not* necessarily to the local disk? Meaning we're ok to > release the transaction when the data is in memory both locally and > remotely but not wait for I/O?
If we crash, the slave can end up ahead of the master, and then it's hopelessly corrupted... Maybe we could engineer around this, but it hasn't been done yet. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
