Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> No one is every going to do it, so we might as well make the best guess
> we have.  I think any platform where the *data* options are slower than
> the non-*data* options is broken, and if that logic holds, we might as
> well just use *data* by default if we can, which is my proposal.

Adjusting the default settings I don't have a problem with.  Removing
options I have a problem with --- and that appeared to be what you
were proposing.
        regards, tom lane