On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more > then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming > only one synchronous standby. > >> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of >> duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as >> higher priority, though exactly which one is indeterminate. > > The patch attatched edits the above to the following. > >> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of >> duplicates some of the matching standbys will be considered as >> higher priority, though they are chosen in an indeterminate way. > > Is this makes sense?
I don't see what the problem is with the existing language. I don't find your rewrite to be clearer. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
