Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: 2016-04-05 11:51:53
Message-ID: CANP8+jJzr_AooGxt0WUAv7q1D8p69xCKa0f1_Ksao5R9XPZTyg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2016-04-05 12:05:19 Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2016-04-05 11:47:15 Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel