Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:55:37AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 06/04/17 03:51, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >>>> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
>> >>>> and complete them until the release.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (1)
>> >>>> Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, should be
>> >>>> chosen when neither FIRST nor ANY is specified in s_s_names? Right now,
>> >>>> a priority-based sync replication is chosen for keeping backward
>> >>>> compatibility. However some hackers argued to change this decision
>> >>>> so that a quorum commit is chosen because they think that most users
>> >>>> prefer to a quorum.
>
>> >> The items (1) and (3) are not bugs. So I don't think that they need to be
>> >> resolved before the beta release. After the feature freeze, many users
>> >> will try and play with many new features including quorum-based syncrep.
>> >> Then if many of them complain about (1) and (3), we can change the code
>> >> at that timing. So we need more time that users can try the feature.
>> >
>> > I've moved (1) to a new section for things to revisit during beta. If someone
>> > feels strongly that the current behavior is Wrong and must change, speak up as
>> > soon as you reach that conclusion. Absent such arguments, the behavior won't
>> > change.
>> >
>>
>> I was one of the people who said in original thread that I think the
>> default behavior should change to quorum and I am still of that opinion.
>
> This item appears under "decisions to recheck mid-beta". If anyone is going
> to push for a change here, now is the time.

It has been 1 week since the previous mail. I though that there were
others argued to change the behavior of old-style setting so that a
quorum commit is chosen. If nobody is going to push for a change we
can live with the current behavior?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center