Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority

I wrote:
> It doesn't seem to me to be that hard to implement the desired
> semantics for synchronous_standby_names with inconsistent info.
> In FIRST mode you basically just need to take the N smallest
> priorities you see in the array, but without assuming there are no
> duplicates or holes. It might be a good idea to include ties at the
> end, that is if you see 1,2,2,4 or 1,3,3,4 and you want 2 sync
> standbys, include the first three of them in the calculation until
> the inconsistency is resolved. In ANY mode I don't see that
> inconsistent priorities matter at all.

Concretely, I think we ought to do the attached, or something pretty
close to it.

I'm not really happy about breaking ties based on walsnd_index,
but I see that there are several TAP test cases that fail if we
do something else. I'm inclined to think those tests are bogus ...
but I won't argue to change them right now.

regards, tom lane