Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> An alternate mechanism that tells the client the commit is done when it
> hasn't hit disk is of no use for the applications I work with, so I
> haven't even been paying attention to no-commit-wait.
Agreed, if you need "committed" to mean "committed" then no-wait isn't
going to float your boat. But the point I was making is that the
infrastructure Simon proposes (ie, a separate wal-writer process)
might be useful for this case too, with a lot less extra code than
Heikki is thinking about. Now maybe that won't work, but we should
certainly not consider these as entirely-independent patches.
regards, tom lane