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 →
-
Set the priorities of all quorum synchronous standbys to 1.
- 346199dcab4c 10.0 landed
-
Improve documentation and comment for quorum-based sync replication.
- a790ed9f69ef 10.0 landed