| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-07-02 05:10:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQt89j3rXfiFxmiCgoD72O1Fq1bNJaoe+dQHvPSuhPcEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 6/26/15 1:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> - k(elt1,elt2,eltN) means that we need for the k elements in the set
>> to return true (aka commit confirmation).
>> - k[elt1,elt2,eltN] means that we need for the first k elements in the
>> set to return true.
>
> I think the difference between (...) and [...] is not intuitive. To me,
> {...} would be more intuitive to indicate order does not matter.
When defining a set of elements {} defines elements one by one, () and
[] are used for ranges. Perhaps the difference is better this way.
>> When k is not defined for a group, k = 1.
>
> How about putting it at the end? Like
>
> [foo,bar,baz](2)
I am less convinced by that, now I won't argue against it either.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-07-02 05:16:08 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Map basebackup tablespaces using a tablespace_map file |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-07-02 05:06:38 | Re: WAL-related tools and .paritial WAL file |