Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(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: 2016-12-14 21:47:10
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQ=07ZUo=VcSC4cdpBiQ_2dN8bHMJkUhqd1t5D7B==pAQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If we drop the "standby_list" syntax, I don't think that new parameter is
> necessary. We can keep s_s_names and just drop the support for that syntax
> from s_s_names. This may be ok if we're really in "break all the things" mode
> for PostgreSQL 10.

Please let's not raise that as an argument again... And not break the
s_list argument. Many users depend on that for just single sync
standbys. FWIW, I'd be in favor of backward compatibility and say that
a standby list is a priority list if we can maintain that. Upthread
agreement was to break that, I did not insist further, and won't if
that's still the feeling.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-12-14 21:51:24 Re: [PATCH] Remove trailing whitespaces from documentation
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2016-12-14 21:37:46 Re: [PATCH] Remove trailing whitespaces from documentation