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