| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names. |
| Date: | 2016-04-21 17:33:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZLgs7_Lex4R3Q23Geo6BTfVEM-0Hm1HKhJzM1gxBFUJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> ISTM, the sentence describes what happens in a *single instance* of
> encountering duplicate (same name found in primary_conninfo of 2 or more
> standbys). It's still one name but which of the standbys claims the spot
> (for that name) of being a synchronous standby with given priority is
> indeterminate.
>
> Now, there can be multiple instances of encountering duplicates, each for
> a different sync slot. But this particular sentence seems to be talking
> about what's the case for any given slot.
Right, that's my reading also.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-21 17:35:32 | Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-21 17:32:11 | Re: Description of ForeignPath |