Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-29 Thread Sawada Masahiko
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: >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-28 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-27 Thread Sawada Masahiko
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

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-27 Thread Kevin Grittner
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

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-27 Thread Sawada Masahiko
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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-24 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-24 Thread Sawada Masahiko
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

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication

2013-08-23 Thread Josh Berkus
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