On 16 June 2013 17:25, Samrat Revagade <
revagade.samrat@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Simon Riggs <
simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So I strongly object to calling this patch anything to do with
>> "failback safe". You simply don't have enough data to make such a bold
>> claim. (Which is why we call it synchronous replication and not "zero
>> data loss", for example).
>>
>> But that's not the whole story. I can see some utility in a patch that
>> makes all WAL transfer synchronous, rather than just commits. Some
>> name like synchronous_transfer might be appropriate. e.g.
>> synchronous_transfer = all | commit (default).
>>
>
> I agree with you about the fact that,
> Now a days the need of fresh backup in crash recovery seems to be a major
> problem.
> we might need to change the name of patch if there other problems too with
> crash recovery.
(Sorry don't understand)