| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v19 |
| Date: | 2011-03-05 12:49:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1299329386.10703.11610.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 07:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > It is documented that the selection of standby from a set of similar
> > priorities is indeterminate. Users don't like it, they can change it.
>
> That doesn't seem like a good argument to *change* the synchronous
> standby once it's already set.
If the order is arbitrary, why does it matter if it changes?
The user has the power to specify a sequence, yet they have not done so.
They are told the results are indeterminate, which is accurate. I can
add the words "and may change as new standbys connect" if that helps.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-05 13:05:31 | Re: Sync Rep v19 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-05 12:24:46 | Re: Sync Rep v19 |