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 intentionally excluded the regression test from the patch because
I'd like to review and commit it separately from the main part of the feature.

I'd appreciate if you read through the regression test which was included
in previous patch and update it if required.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao