Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

> As proposed, this feature does not bring us really closer to quorum
> commit, and AFAIK this is what we are more or less aiming at recalling
> previous discussions. Particularly with the syntax proposed above, it
> is not possible to do some OR conditions on subgroups of nodes, the
> list of nodes is forcibly using AND because it is necessary to wait
> for all the subgroups. Also, users may want to track nodes from the
> same group with different application_name.

The patch assumes that all standbys of a group share a name and so the "OR"
condition would be taken care of that way.
Also, since uniqueness of standby_name cannot be enforced, the same name
could be repeated across groups!.

Regards,

Beena

-----

--

Beena Emerson

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Support-for-N-synchronous-standby-servers-take-2-tp5849384p5849712.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.