04.12.2018 5:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:28:15PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>> Yes, you are right. It should be "on" as "remote_flush" is not a valid
>>> value. remote_flush is listed in SyncCommitLevel though, so this makes
>>> me wonder if we should also introduce a new value for this purpose
>>> available for users. The fix you propose looks good to me. Any
>>> opinions from others?
>> +1 for the patch.
> Thanks for confirming, Thomas. I'll go apply hopefully tomorrow if
> nobody has objections.
>
>> As for introducing remote_flush as the true name of the level, this
>> was discussed but somehow went off-course and never made it to the
>> finish line:
>>
>>
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D3FFaanSS4sugG%2BApzq2tCVjEYCO2wOQBod2d7GWb%3DDvA%40mail.gmail.com
> Oh, I forgot this one. We may want to revive that... remote_flush is
> more meaningful than on, especially since there are more and more
> possible values for synchronous_commit.
Yeah, I think the notion *remote_flush level* is more appropriate
especially in the context of sync replication. Within this context maybe
it makes sense to replace the word *level* to *value* in description of
*flush_lag*?
--
Regards,
Maksim Milyutin