Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Date: 2017-04-16 04:19:17
Message-ID: 20170416041917.GB2986517@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > >> (2)
> > > >> There will be still many source comments and documentations that
> > > >> we need to update, for example, in high-availability.sgml. We need to
> > > >> check and update them throughly.
> > > >>
> > > >> (3)
> > > >> The priority value is assigned to each standby listed in s_s_names
> > > >> even in quorum commit though those priority values are not used at all.
> > > >> Users can see those priority values in pg_stat_replication.
> > > >> Isn't this confusing? If yes, it might be better to always assign 1 as
> > > >> the priority, for example.
>
> > > Regarding the item (2), Sawada-san told me that he will work on it after
> > > this CommitFest finishes. So we would receive the patch for the item from
> > > him next week. If there will be no patch even after the end of next week
> > > (i.e., April 14th), I will. Let's wait for Sawada-san's action at first.
> >
> > Sounds reasonable; I will look for your update on 14Apr or earlier.
>
> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
>
> > Since you do want (3) to change, please own it like any other open item,
> > including the mandatory status updates.
>
> Likewise.

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due
for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by
2017-04-17 05:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
ownership without further notice.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2017-04-16 04:25:31 Re: Re: extended stats not friendly towards ANALYZE with subset of columns
Previous Message Noah Misch 2017-04-16 04:14:21 Re: SCRAM authentication, take three