On 03/02/2011 03:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Truly "synchronous" requires two-phase commit, which this never was. So
> the absence or presence of the poorly specified parameter called
> allow_standalone_primary should have no bearing on what we call this
> feature.
>
I haven't been following this very closely, but to me this screams out
that we simply must not call it "synchronous".
Just my $0.02 worth.
cheers
andrew