From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2017-04-21 06:34:34 |
Message-ID: | 20170421063434.GC184144@rfd.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:20:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> >> As I told firstly this is not a bug. There are some proposals for better design
> >> >> of priority column in pg_stat_replication, but we've not reached the consensus
> >> >> yet. So I think that it's better to move this open item to "Design Decisions to
> >> >> Recheck Mid-Beta" section so that we can hear more opinions.
> >> >
> >> > I'm reading that some people want to report NULL priority, some people want to
> >> > report a constant 1 priority, and nobody wants the current behavior. Is that
> >> > an accurate summary?
> >>
> >> Yes, I think that's correct.
> >
> > Okay, but ...
> >
> >> FWIW the reason of current behavior is that it would be useful for the
> >> user who is willing to switch from ANY to FIRST. They can know which
> >> standbys will become sync or potential.
> >
> > ... does this mean you personally want to keep the current behavior? If not,
> > has some other person stated a wish to keep the current behavior?
>
> No, I want to change the current behavior. IMO it's better to set
> priority 1 to all standbys in quorum set. I guess there is no longer
> person who supports the current behavior.
In that case, this open item is not eligible for section "Design Decisions to
Recheck Mid-Beta". That section is for items where we'll probably change
nothing, but we plan to recheck later just in case. Here, we expect to change
the behavior; the open question is which replacement behavior to prefer.
Fujii, as the owner of this open item, you are responsible for moderating the
debate until there's adequate consensus to make a particular change or to keep
the current behavior after all. Please proceed to do that. Beta testers
deserve a UI they may like, not a UI you already plan to change later.
Thanks,
nm
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-04-21 06:41:04 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-04-21 05:43:42 | Re: AGG_HASHED cost estimate |