On 10/17/2014 01:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 17 October 2014 09:55, <furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp> wrote:
A new parameter to send feedback should be called --feedback
A second parameter to decide whether to fsync should be called --fsync
I think keep using "--reply-fsync" and "--fsync-interval" is better than make
new options.
Thought?
We already have hot_standby_feedback, so using the name feedback is best idea.
I am suggesting that we send feedback even if we do not fsync, to
allow the master to track our progress. Hence the name of the second
parameter was just fsync.
So both names were suggested because of links to those terms already
being used for similar reasons elsewhere in Postgres.
We seem to be going in circles. You suggested having two options,
--feedback, and --fsync, which is almost exactly what Furuya posted
originally. I objected to that, because I think that user interface is
too complicated. Instead, I suggested having just a single option called
--synchronous, or even better, have no option at all and have the server
tell the client if it's participating in synchronous replication, and
have pg_receivexlog automatically fsync when it is, and not otherwise
[1]. That way you don't need to expose any new options to the user. What
did you think of that idea?
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5434e0ef.9050...@vmware.com
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
