Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > Wouldn't the same issue exist if one transaction is waiting for > sync rep (synchronous_commit=on), and another is waiting for just > a WAL flush (synchronous_commit=local)? I don't think that a > synchronous_commit=off is required. I think you're right -- basically, to make visibility atomic with commit and allow a fast snapshot build based on that order, any new commit request would need to block behind any pending request, regardless of that setting. At least, no way around that is apparent to me. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
