On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > 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.
Okay, so our consensus is to always set the priorities of sync standbys to 1 in quorum-based syncrep case. Attached patch does this change. Barrying any objection, I will commit this. I will commit something to close this open item by April 28th at the latest (IOW before my vacation starts). Regards, -- Fujii Masao
sync_priority.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
