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 makes
>> me wonder if we should also
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 06:18:30PM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
> > I have noticed that in description of *flush_lag* in pg_stat_replication
> > view
> > (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/monitoring-stats.html#PG-STAT-REPLICATION-VIE
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 06:18:30PM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
> I have noticed that in description of *flush_lag* in pg_stat_replication
> view
> (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/monitoring-stats.html#PG-STAT-REPLICATION-VIEW)
> there exists unknown value of synchronous_commit parameter
> If you were to rewrite those paragraphs or make them more precise, how
> would you actually shape your suggestions? I personally quite like the
> current formulations, but I am rather used to it to be honest.
> --
> Michael
Yep, I am for make them more precise. Now this paragraphs describe Po
I will create one or more wiki pages where the procedure is described.
Everybody can extend this pages or contribute to their discussion
sites. The pages will be found in the category 'Documentation' and its
subcategory 'SVG' (to be created).
The wiki pages are online: https://wiki.postgre
Hello!
I have noticed that in description of *flush_lag* in pg_stat_replication
view
(https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/monitoring-stats.html#PG-STAT-REPLICATION-VIEW)
there exists unknown value of synchronous_commit parameter -
*remote_flush*. I think it was meant to use the value *on
