On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> I'm wondering if we've hit the point where trying to put all of this in a
>> single GUC is a bad idea... changing that probably means a config
>> compatibility break, but I don't think that
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> I'm wondering if we've hit the point where trying to put all of this in a
> single GUC is a bad idea... changing that probably means a config
> compatibility break, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing at
> this point...
Aside from t
Re: Thomas Munro 2016-08-21
> Right, we could just add it to guc.c after "on", so that you can "SET
> synchronous_commit TO remote_flush", but then "SHOW
> synchronous_commit" returns "on".
>
> The problem I was thinking about was this: if you add "remote_flush"
> before "on" in guc.c, then "SHO
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>>> To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
>>> "on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flus
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
>> "on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flush". But it's not
>> obvious how the backwards compatibility co
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
> "on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flush". But it's not
> obvious how the backwards compatibility could work, ie how to keep the
> people happy who use "local"
On 8/17/16 11:22 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
Hi hackers,
To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
"on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flush". But it's not
obvious how the backwards compatibility could work, ie how to keep the
people happy who use "local" vs "on"
Hi hackers,
To do something about the confusion I keep seeing about what exactly
"on" means, I've often wished we had "remote_flush". But it's not
obvious how the backwards compatibility could work, ie how to keep the
people happy who use "local" vs "on" to control syncrep, and also the
people wh
