From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2016-08-04 04:40:58 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCoxnD+=kZAJ68H9RMEsVNZqc9BCo92oFq3F=61J+i-sA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I was thinking that the syntax for quorum method would use '[ ... ]'
>> but it will be confused with '( ... )' priority method used.
>> 001 patch adds 'Any N ( ... )' style syntax but I know that we still
>> might need to discuss about better syntax, discussion is very welcome.
>> Attached draft patch, please give me feedback.
>
> I am +1 for using either "{}" or "[]" to define a quorum set, and -1
> for the addition of a keyword in front of the integer defining for how
> many nodes server need to wait for.
Thank you for reply.
"{}" or "[]" are not bad but because these are not intuitive, I
thought that it will be hard for uses to use different method for each
purpose.
> - foreach(cell, sync_standbys)
> + foreach (cell, sync_standbys)
> {
> - WalSnd *walsnd = &WalSndCtl->walsnds[lfirst_int(cell)];
> + WalSnd *walsnd = &WalSndCtl->walsnds[lfirst_int(cell)];
> This patch has some noise.
Will fix.
--
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-04 04:45:27 | Re: New version numbering practices |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2016-08-04 04:29:27 | Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta |