| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2015-06-26 06:05:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT-Z5SEom2KDwK9Ja3qXmq26=TbX+AnW0L_n0FCXq-xzA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Do we really need to add a number like '1' in '1(a, b), c, d'?
> The order of writing names already implies priorities like 2 & 3 for c & d,
> respectively, like in your example. Having to write '1' for the group '(a, b)'
> seems unnecessary, IMHO. Sorry if I have missed any previous discussion where
> its necessity was discussed.
'1' is implied if no number is specified. That's the idea as written
here, not something decided of course :)
> So, the order of writing standby names in the list should declare their
> relative priorities and parentheses (possibly nested) should help inform about
> the grouping (for quorum?)
Yes.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2015-06-26 06:06:24 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2015-06-26 05:59:52 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |