On 2014-08-19 08:21:10 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 01:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 2. I agree that it's not good to have this get controlled by a GUC.
> > If the behavior change is big enough that it's going to break clients,
> > adding a GUC isn't a sufficient remedy.  If it's not, adding a GUC is
> > unnecessary.
> There's plenty of agreement on "not a GUC" - but what about alternatives?

What's the problem with the COMMIT WITH (report_lsn on) I've proposed?
Reporting the LSN in the command tag? Anything doing transparent
failover needs to be aware of transaction boundaries anyway. 


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to