On May 25, 2010, at 22:16 , Simon Riggs wrote: > All of these issues show why I want to specify the synchronisation mode > as a USERSET. That will allow us to specify more easily which parts of > our application are important when the cluster is degraded and which > data is so critical it must reach multiple servers.
Hm, but since flushing a important COMMIT to the slave(s) will also need to flush all previous (potentially unimportant) COMMITs to the slave(s), isn't there a substantial chance of priority-inversion type problems there? Then again, if asynchronous_commit proved to be effective than so will this probably, so maybe my fear is unjustified. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
