Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 5 April 2016 at 12:26, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Multiple standbys with the same name may connect to the master.
>>>> In this case, users might want to specifiy k<=N. So k<=N seems not invalid
>>>> setting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Confusing as that is, it is already the case; k > N could make sense. ;-(
>>>
>>> However, in most cases, k > N would not make sense and we should issue a
>>> WARNING.
>>
>> Somebody (maybe Horiguchi-san and Sawada-san) commented this upthread
>> and the code for that test was included in the old patch (but I excluded it).
>> Now the majority seems to prefer to add that test, so I just revived and
>> revised that test code.
>
> The regression test codes seems not to be included in latest patch, no?

I am looking at the latest patch now, and they are not included. It
would be good to get those tests bundled in for a last lookup I think.
--
Michael