| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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 01:51:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTFZH=13d+t8rx4e33PRAFofMM4eKZfPAaePQkU5ucwuw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 08/30/2016 06:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> ??? It's always been possible for me to give multiple standbys the same
>>> name, making a de-facto group.
>>
>> A "group" grammar, by that I mean an alias referring to a set of
>> nodes, is not supported. And you can still define multiple entries
>> with the same name.
>>
>
> Yeah, so what happens in the case I described? Is the master just
> looking for that number of commits, or is it looking for a commit from
> g1 and from g2?
How do you set up synchronous_standby_names in this case? Are multiple
nodes using the same application_name, being either 'g1' or 'g2'?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-08-31 01:52:59 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-08-31 01:45:53 | Re: DRAFT 9.6 release |