On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on > and complete them until the release. > > (1) > Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, should be > chosen when neither FIRST nor ANY is specified in s_s_names? Right now, > a priority-based sync replication is chosen for keeping backward > compatibility. However some hackers argued to change this decision > so that a quorum commit is chosen because they think that most users > prefer to a quorum. > > (2) > There will be still many source comments and documentations that > we need to update, for example, in high-availability.sgml. We need to > check and update them throughly. > > (3) > The priority value is assigned to each standby listed in s_s_names > even in quorum commit though those priority values are not used at all. > Users can see those priority values in pg_stat_replication. > Isn't this confusing? If yes, it might be better to always assign 1 as > the priority, for example.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Fujii, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
