Hi,
At Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:27:07 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in <5719e05b.4030...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>
> Horiguchi-san,
>
> On 2016/04/22 14:21, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > I came to think that both of you are misunderstanding how
> > synchronous standbys are choosed so I'd like to clarify the
> >
Horiguchi-san,
On 2016/04/22 14:21, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I came to think that both of you are misunderstanding how
> synchronous standbys are choosed so I'd like to clarify the
> behavior.
I certainly had a different (and/or wrong) idea in mind about how this
works. Thanks a lot for clari
I came to think that both of you are misunderstanding how
synchronous standbys are choosed so I'd like to clarify the
behavior.
At Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:09:28 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20160422.110928.18809311.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > > But this particul
I'm not so confident on me but, please let me continue on this a
bit more for my understanding.
At Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:33:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > ISTM, the sentence describes what happens in a *single instance* of
> > encounte
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> ISTM, the sentence describes what happens in a *single instance* of
> encountering duplicate (same name found in primary_conninfo of 2 or more
> standbys). It's still one name but which of the standbys claims the spot
> (for that name) of bei
On 2016/04/21 12:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:07:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>>
There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as
>>
At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:07:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more
> > then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming
> > only one synchronous standby.
>
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more
> then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming
> only one synchronous standby.
>
>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
>> duplicat
Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more
then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming
only one synchronous standby.
> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
> duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as
> higher priori
