Re: Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:07:41 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CA+TgmoZVgfmGfuM3rzLg26ZQHoqBE__QvpfC2YAbM0F7RE+9pQ(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I don't see what the problem is with the existing language. I don't
> find your rewrite to be clearer.

My first sentense shows my concern. I don't want make something
clear but want to fix the description that seems to me to be
wrong.

If the exising description fits the case that two or more
matching standbys are choosed as 'higher priority', I'm quite bad
in reading..

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center