On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 5 April 2016 at 12:26, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.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? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
