At Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:20:05 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAD21AoCU+ch4b2O0iW-b_BnUs7oMcT8pcwM690XVu134k=c...@mail.gmail.com> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> (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. > >> > > >> >> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. > >> >> >> Kindly send > >> >> >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your > >> >> >> subsequent status > >> >> >> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > >> >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com > >> > > >> >> >> > Since you do want (3) to change, please own it like any other open > >> >> >> > item, > >> >> >> > including the mandatory status updates. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Likewise. > >> >> > >> >> As I told firstly this is not a bug. There are some proposals for > >> >> better design > >> >> of priority column in pg_stat_replication, but we've not reached the > >> >> consensus > >> >> yet. So I think that it's better to move this open item to "Design > >> >> Decisions to > >> >> Recheck Mid-Beta" section so that we can hear more opinions. > >> > > >> > I'm reading that some people want to report NULL priority, some people > >> > want to > >> > report a constant 1 priority, and nobody wants the current behavior. Is > >> > that > >> > an accurate summary? > >> > >> Yes, I think that's correct. > > > > Okay, but ... > > > >> FWIW the reason of current behavior is that it would be useful for the > >> user who is willing to switch from ANY to FIRST. They can know which > >> standbys will become sync or potential. > > > > ... does this mean you personally want to keep the current behavior? If > > not, > > has some other person stated a wish to keep the current behavior? > > No, I want to change the current behavior. IMO it's better to set > priority 1 to all standbys in quorum set. I guess there is no longer > person who supports the current behavior.
+1 for the latter. For the former, I'd like to distinguish standbys in sync and not in the field or something if we can allow the additional complexity. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi 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
