On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Sawada Masahiko
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Sawada Masahiko
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Sawada Masahiko
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/23/2013 12:42 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> in case
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> What is happening here is that incase of '*' as priority of both
>> are same, system will choose whichever comes in list of
>> registered standby's first (list is maintained in structure
>> WalSndCtl). Each standby
Amit Kapila wrote:
> What is happening here is that incase of '*' as priority of both
> are same, system will choose whichever comes in list of
> registered standby's first (list is maintained in structure
> WalSndCtl). Each standby is registered with WalSndCtl when a new
> WALSender is started
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Sawada Masahiko
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> On 08/23/2013 12:42 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
in case (a), those priority is clear. So I think that re-taking over
>>>
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 08/23/2013 12:42 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>> in case (a), those priority is clear. So I think that re-taking over
>>> is correct behaviour.
>>> OHOT, in case (b), even if AAA and
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/23/2013 12:42 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>> in case (a), those priority is clear. So I think that re-taking over
>> is correct behaviour.
>> OHOT, in case (b), even if AAA and BBB are set same priority, AAA
>> server steals SYNC replicati
On 08/23/2013 12:42 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> in case (a), those priority is clear. So I think that re-taking over
> is correct behaviour.
> OHOT, in case (b), even if AAA and BBB are set same priority, AAA
> server steals SYNC replication.
> I think it is better that BBB server continue behavio
Hi all,
I understand that setting synchronous_standby_name to '*' means that
all priority of standby server are same.
and the standby server, which connected to the master server at first,
become SYNC standby, another server become
ASYNC standby as potential server.
So, how to set the priority to
