Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Date: 2016-09-09 09:23:28
Message-ID: CANP8+jLSvPpyT+bWQAwpTcBPYVgEF2tAA8-aArw8G1rhM8QvVA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8 September 2016 at 10:26, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> "k (n1, n2, n3)" == "first k (n1, n2, n3)" doesn't break backward
> compatibility but most users would think "k(n1, n2, n3)" as quorum
> after introduced quorum.
> I wish we can change the s_s_names syntax of 9.6 to "first k(n1, n2,
> n3)" style before 9.6 releasing if we got consensus.

Let's see the proposed patch, so we can evaluate the proposal.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-09-09 09:31:39 Re: ICU integration
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-09-09 08:55:48 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take