Horton

Re: Sync Rep v19

Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-03-05T16:42:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
El 05/03/2011 11:18, "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
> > I'm not in favour.
> >
> > If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no
> > preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
> >
> > What are the rules for maintaining this arbitrary order?
>
> Probably what Robert, Yeb and I think is to leave the current
> sync standby in sync mode until either its connection is closed
> or higher priority standby connects. No complicated rule is
> required.
>

It's not better to remove the code to manage * in synchronous_standby_names?
Once we do that there is no chance of having 2 standbys with the same
priority.

After all, most of the times the dba will need to change the * for a real
list of names anyway. At least in IMHO

--
Jaime Casanova                www.2ndQuadrant.com