From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names. |
Date: | 2016-04-21 03:07:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZVgfmGfuM3rzLg26ZQHoqBE__QvpfC2YAbM0F7RE+9pQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more
> then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming
> only one synchronous standby.
>
>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
>> duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as
>> higher priority, though exactly which one is indeterminate.
>
> The patch attatched edits the above to the following.
>
>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
>> duplicates some of the matching standbys will be considered as
>> higher priority, though they are chosen in an indeterminate way.
>
> Is this makes sense?
I don't see what the problem is with the existing language. I don't
find your rewrite to be clearer.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-04-21 03:25:02 | Re: Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-21 03:06:22 | Re: "parallel= " information is not coming in pg_dumpall for create aggregate |