On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> Thanks for the notice! >> >> Regarding the item (2), Sawada-san told me that he will work on it after >> this CommitFest finishes. So we would receive the patch for the item from >> him next week. If there will be no patch even after the end of next week >> (i.e., April 14th), I will. Let's wait for Sawada-san's action at first. > > Sounds reasonable; I will look for your update on 14Apr or earlier. > >> The items (1) and (3) are not bugs. So I don't think that they need to be >> resolved before the beta release. After the feature freeze, many users >> will try and play with many new features including quorum-based syncrep. >> Then if many of them complain about (1) and (3), we can change the code >> at that timing. So we need more time that users can try the feature. > > I've moved (1) to a new section for things to revisit during beta. If someone > feels strongly that the current behavior is Wrong and must change, speak up as > soon as you reach that conclusion. Absent such arguments, the behavior won't > change. > >> BTW, IMO (3) should be fixed so that pg_stat_replication reports NULL >> as the priority if quorum-based sync rep is chosen. It's less confusing. > > Since you do want (3) to change, please own it like any other open item, > including the mandatory status updates.
I agree to report NULL as the priority. I'll send a patch for this as well. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
