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.
--
Michael