| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Date: | 2016-08-31 01:42:23 |
| Message-ID: | 313c0f56-8ea4-ac4e-cc4e-ea013598b414@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 2016/08/31 10:35, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/30/2016 06:32 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/08/31 10:25, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Also, if I do this:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2 ( g1, g2, g3 )
>>>
>>> ... and g1, g2 and g3 are *groups* of three standbys each, what happens?
>>> Does it wait for one or more responses from g1 and from g2, or does
>>> getting two responses from g1 trigger a commit?
>>
>> We do not support specifying groups either. Names refer to the actual
>> standby names. Groups part of the earlier proposal(s) was taken out of
>> the patch, IIRC.
>
> ??? It's always been possible for me to give multiple standbys the same
> name, making a de-facto group.
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought you were referring to some new feature.
I remember discussions about various syntaxes for specifying standby
groups (json, etc.) as part of the proposed feature. Sorry about the noise.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-08-31 01:45:53 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-31 01:39:24 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |