Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(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: 2017-08-10 05:49:45
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT9fN_t6K8cwHp4WBN57wjTOY=E9E026cyCB1RTx5EOHg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> This item appears under "decisions to recheck mid-beta". If anyone is going
>> to push for a change here, now is the time.
>
> It has been 1 week since the previous mail. I though that there were
> others argued to change the behavior of old-style setting so that a
> quorum commit is chosen. If nobody is going to push for a change we
> can live with the current behavior?

FWIW, I still see no harm in keeping backward-compatibility here, so I
am in favor of a statu-quo.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-08-10 06:08:36 Re: Timing-sensitive case in src/test/recovery TAP tests
Previous Message Amit Khandekar 2017-08-10 05:34:36 Re: Parallel Append implementation