From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(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: | 2017-04-21 04:20:05 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCU+ch4b2O0iW-b_BnUs7oMcT8pcwM690XVu134k=cA+Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> > 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:
>> >> >> > > >> (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.
>> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> As I told firstly this is not a bug. There are some proposals for better design
>> >> of priority column in pg_stat_replication, but we've not reached the consensus
>> >> yet. So I think that it's better to move this open item to "Design Decisions to
>> >> Recheck Mid-Beta" section so that we can hear more opinions.
>> >
>> > I'm reading that some people want to report NULL priority, some people want to
>> > report a constant 1 priority, and nobody wants the current behavior. Is that
>> > an accurate summary?
>>
>> Yes, I think that's correct.
>
> Okay, but ...
>
>> FWIW the reason of current behavior is that it would be useful for the
>> user who is willing to switch from ANY to FIRST. They can know which
>> standbys will become sync or potential.
>
> ... does this mean you personally want to keep the current behavior? If not,
> has some other person stated a wish to keep the current behavior?
No, I want to change the current behavior. IMO it's better to set
priority 1 to all standbys in quorum set. I guess there is no longer
person who supports the current behavior.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-04-21 04:27:56 | Re: some review comments on logical rep code |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-21 04:11:27 | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |