Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT, the remote_write setting for synchronous_commit is named exactly
>> backwards, because the point of the setting is that it *doesn't* wait
>> for the remote to write anything.
>>
>> As an alternative I sug
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT, the remote_write setting for synchronous_commit is named exactly
> backwards, because the point of the setting is that it *doesn't* wait
> for the remote to write anything.
>
> As an alternative I suggest "remote_receive". Perhap
AFAICT, the remote_write setting for synchronous_commit is named exactly
backwards, because the point of the setting is that it *doesn't* wait
for the remote to write anything.
As an alternative I suggest "remote_receive". Perhaps somebody else
has a better idea?
regards,
