On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we drop the "standby_list" syntax, I don't think that new parameter is > necessary. We can keep s_s_names and just drop the support for that syntax > from s_s_names. This may be ok if we're really in "break all the things" mode > for PostgreSQL 10.
Please let's not raise that as an argument again... And not break the s_list argument. Many users depend on that for just single sync standbys. FWIW, I'd be in favor of backward compatibility and say that a standby list is a priority list if we can maintain that. Upthread agreement was to break that, I did not insist further, and won't if that's still the feeling. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
