Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2016-04-06 05:21:03
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

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.

Attached is the updated version of the patch. I also completed Amit's
and Robert's comments.


Fujii Masao

Attachment Content-Type Size
multi_sync_replication_v24.patch text/x-patch 53.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-04-06 05:38:41 Re: Choosing parallel_degree
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2016-04-06 05:18:44 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2