| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
| Date: | 2017-04-14 07:39:38 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j+kB94LDkHr_b7B07C-tOadsPoHY3T62BejDEwPHXj9mQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 April 2017 at 18:47, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But on second thought, I don't think that reporting NULL as the priority when
> quorum-based sync replication is used is less confusing. When there is async
> standby, we report 0 as its priority when synchronous_standby_names is empty
> or a priority-based sync replication is configured. But with the patch, when
> a quorum-based one is specified, NULL is reported for that.
> Isn't this confusing?
To me, yes, it is confusing.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-04-14 07:43:27 | Re: Minor typo in partition.c |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-04-14 07:39:22 | Re: Minor typo in partition.c |