From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names. |
Date: | 2016-04-18 03:56:14 |
Message-ID: | 20160418.125614.54844004.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more
then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming
only one synchronous standby.
> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
> duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as
> higher priority, though exactly which one is indeterminate.
The patch attatched edits the above to the following.
> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
> duplicates some of the matching standbys will be considered as
> higher priority, though they are chosen in an indeterminate way.
Is this makes sense?
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix_applicateion_name_doc.diff | text/x-patch | 983 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2016-04-18 04:11:00 | Confusing comment in pg_upgrade in regards to VACUUM FREEZE |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-18 03:38:57 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |