Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@berkus.org>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-08-16T07:37:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse
> users and we want to break the backward compatibility, I'd rather like
> to remove that style in PostgreSQL 10 and to raise an syntax error to
> user for more safety. Also, since the syntax 'a, b' might be opaque
> for new users who don't know the history of s_s_names syntax, we could
> unify its syntax to '[ANY|FIRST] N (a, b, ...)' syntax while keeping
> the '*'.

I find the removal of a syntax in release N for something introduced
in release (N - 1) a bit hard to swallow from the user prospective.
What about just issuing a warning instead and say that the use of
ANY/FIRST is recommended? It costs nothing in maintenance to keep it
around.
-- 
Michael


Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Set the priorities of all quorum synchronous standbys to 1.

  2. Improve documentation and comment for quorum-based sync replication.