04.12.2018 5:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:28:15PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
Yes, you are right. It should be "on" as "remote_flush" is not a valid
value. remote_flush is listed in SyncCommitLevel though, so this
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:24:22AM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
> Yeah, I think the notion *remote_flush level* is more appropriate especially
> in the context of sync replication. Within this context maybe it makes sense
> to replace the word *level* to *value* in description of *flush_lag*?
I a
05.12.2018 4:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:24:22AM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
Yeah, I think the notion *remote_flush level* is more appropriate especially
in the context of sync replication. Within this context maybe it makes sense
to replace the word *level* to *valu
