On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:40, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:05 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? >> >> Seems there is a pretty large usecase for this particular in our >> lovely new cloud environments with pathetic I/O performance.... > > Yeh, its on my TODO list. > > What we need to do is to send the last written point as part of the > replication protocol, so the standby can receive it, yet know not to > apply it yet in case of crash. > > I was expecting that to change as a result of efforts to improve > WALInsertLock, so I didn't want to do something that would be > immediately invalidated.
Understood. Something to look forward in 9.3 then :-) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
