On 27 February 2016 at 13:20, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote:
>> On 21 February 2016 at 23:18, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> The replay_lag is particularly cool.  Didn't think it was possible to
>> glean this information on the primary, but the timings are correct in
>> my tests.
>> +1 for this patch.  Looks like this solves the problem that
>> semi-synchronous replication tries to solve, although arguably in a
>> more sensible way.
> Yeah, having extra logic at application layer to check if a certain
> LSN position has been applied or not is doable, but if we can avoid it
> that's a clear plus.
> This patch has no documentation. I will try to figure out by myself
> how the new parameters interact with the rest of the syncrep code
> while looking at it but if we want to move on to get something
> committable for 9.6 it would be good to get some documentation soon.

Could we rename "apply" to "remote_apply"?  It seems more consistent
with "remote_write", and matches its own enum entry too.


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

Reply via email to