Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: > I'm torn on whether we should cave to popular demand on this; but > if we do, we sure need to be very clear in the documentation about > what a successful return from a commit request means. Sooner or > later, Murphy's Law being what it is, if we do this someone will > lose the primary and blame us because the synchronous replica is > missing gobs of transactions that were successfully committed.
I'm for not caving. I think people who are asking for this don't actually understand what they'd be getting. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers