On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:32:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > It doesn't seem to me to be that hard to implement the desired > > semantics for synchronous_standby_names with inconsistent info. > > In FIRST mode you basically just need to take the N smallest > > priorities you see in the array, but without assuming there are no > > duplicates or holes. It might be a good idea to include ties at the > > end, that is if you see 1,2,2,4 or 1,3,3,4 and you want 2 sync > > standbys, include the first three of them in the calculation until > > the inconsistency is resolved. In ANY mode I don't see that > > inconsistent priorities matter at all. > > Concretely, I think we ought to do the attached, or something pretty > close to it. > > I'm not really happy about breaking ties based on walsnd_index, > but I see that there are several TAP test cases that fail if we > do something else. I'm inclined to think those tests are bogus ... > but I won't argue to change them right now.
This passes the test battery I wrote in preparation for the 2020-02 thread.
