On 2016/04/21 12:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:07:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >>> >>>> 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. > > My first sentense shows my concern. I don't want make something > clear but want to fix the description that seems to me to be > wrong. > > If the exising description fits the case that two or more > matching standbys are choosed as 'higher priority', I'm quite bad > in reading..
ISTM, the sentence describes what happens in a *single instance* of encountering duplicate (same name found in primary_conninfo of 2 or more standbys). It's still one name but which of the standbys claims the spot (for that name) of being a synchronous standby with given priority is indeterminate. Now, there can be multiple instances of encountering duplicates, each for a different sync slot. But this particular sentence seems to be talking about what's the case for any given slot. Does that make sense? Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
