On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:20:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > 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: > > >> >> 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. > > In that case, this open item is not eligible for section "Design Decisions to > Recheck Mid-Beta". That section is for items where we'll probably change > nothing, but we plan to recheck later just in case. Here, we expect to change > the behavior; the open question is which replacement behavior to prefer. > > Fujii, as the owner of this open item, you are responsible for moderating the > debate until there's adequate consensus to make a particular change or to keep > the current behavior after all. Please proceed to do that. Beta testers > deserve a UI they may like, not a UI you already plan to change later.
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. [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
