On 10/17/2014 01:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 17 October 2014 09:55, <furuyao@pm.nttdata.co.jp> wrote:
>
>>> A new parameter to send feedback should be called --feedback
>
>>> A second parameter to decide whether to fsync should be called --fsync
>>
>> I think keep using "--reply-fsync" and "--fsync-interval" is better than make new options.
>> Thought?
>
> We already have hot_standby_feedback, so using the name feedback is best idea.
>
> I am suggesting that we send feedback even if we do not fsync, to
> allow the master to track our progress. Hence the name of the second
> parameter was just fsync.
>
> So both names were suggested because of links to those terms already
> being used for similar reasons elsewhere in Postgres.
We seem to be going in circles. You suggested having two options,
--feedback, and --fsync, which is almost exactly what Furuya posted
originally. I objected to that, because I think that user interface is
too complicated. Instead, I suggested having just a single option called
--synchronous, or even better, have no option at all and have the server
tell the client if it's participating in synchronous replication, and
have pg_receivexlog automatically fsync when it is, and not otherwise
[1]. That way you don't need to expose any new options to the user. What
did you think of that idea?
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5434E0EF.9050304@vmware.com
- Heikki