On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 11:42 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> El 05/03/2011 11:18, "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com> escribió:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> > > I'm not in favour.
> > >
> > > If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there
> is no
> > > preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
> > >
> > > What are the rules for maintaining this arbitrary order?
> >
> > Probably what Robert, Yeb and I think is to leave the current
> > sync standby in sync mode until either its connection is closed
> > or higher priority standby connects. No complicated rule is
> > required.
> >
>
> It's not better to remove the code to manage * in
> synchronous_standby_names? Once we do that there is no chance of
> having 2 standbys with the same priority.
Yes, there is, because we don't do duplicate name checking.
I've changed the default so it is no longer "*" by default, to avoid
complaints.
> After all, most of the times the dba will need to change the * for a
> real list of names anyway. At least in IMHO
>
> --
> Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
