On 09/05/2014 08:51 AM, furuyao@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review!
>>>
>>> I understand the attention message wasn't appropriate.
>>>
>>> To report the write location, even If you do not specify a replication
>> slot.
>>> So the fix only appended messages.
>>>
>>> There was a description of the flush location section of '-S' option,
>>> but I intended to catch eye more and added a message.
>>>
>>> Is it better to make specification of the -S option indispensable?
>>
>> The patch cannot be applied to HEAD cleanly. Could you update the patch?
>
> Thank you for pointing out.
> Updated the patch.
I don't understand what this patch does. When would you want to use the
new --reply-fsync option? Is there any reason *not* to use it? In other
words, do we need an option for this, couldn't you just always send the
feedback message after fsync?
- Heikki