Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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