Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> >> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> >> > > >> (3)
>>> >> > > >> The priority value is assigned to each standby listed in s_s_names
>>> >> > > >> even in quorum commit though those priority values are not used at all.
>>> >> > > >> Users can see those priority values in pg_stat_replication.
>>> >> > > >> Isn't this confusing? If yes, it might be better to always assign 1 as
>>> >> > > >> the priority, for example.
>>
>>> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
>>> >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
>>> >> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
>>> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
>>
>>> >> > Since you do want (3) to change, please own it like any other open item,
>>> >> > including the mandatory status updates.
>>> >>
>>> >> Likewise.
>>>
>>> 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.

Just adding that I am the only one advocating for switching the
priority number to NULL for async standbys, and that this proposal is
visibly outvoted as it breaks backward-compatibility with the
0-priority setting.
-- 
Michael