Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> + ereport(LOG,
>>>> + (errmsg("standby \"%s\" is now the synchronous standby with priority %u",
>>>> + application_name, MyWalSnd->sync_standby_priority)));
>>>>
>>>> s/ the / a /
>>
>> I have no objection to this change itself. But we have used this message
>> in 9.5 or before, so if we apply this change, probably we need
>> back-patching.
>
> "the" implies that there can be only one synchronous standby at that
> priority, while "a" implies that there could be more than one. So the
> situation might be different with this patch than previously. (I
> haven't read the patch so I don't know whether this is actually true,
> but it might be what Thomas was going for.)

Thanks for the explanation!
I applied that change, to the latest patch I posted upthread.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao