Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:34:34PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> 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.

Please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status update
within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your
subsequent status update.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com