On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 14:26 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > All I'm saying is that if we end up shipping without that > > parameter (implying allow_standalone_primary=on), we need to call > > the feature something else. The GUCs and code can probably stay as > > it is, but we shouldn't use the term "synchronous replication" in > > the documentation, and release notes and such. > > I think including "synchronous" is OK as long as it's properly > qualified. Off-hand thoughts in no particular order: > > semi-synchronous
You mean asynchronous > conditionally synchronous You mean asynchronous JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
