On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > 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?
I think it's pretty weird to make the fsync behavior of the client is controlled by the server. I also don't think that fsync() on the client side is useless in asynchronous replication. Yeah, it's true that there are no *guarantees* with asynchronous replication, but the bound on how long the data can take to get out to disk is a heck of a lot shorter if you fsync frequently than if you don't. And on the flip side, that has a performance impact. So I actually think the design you proposed is not as good as what was proposed by Furuya and Simon. But I don't feel incredibly strongly about it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
