On 2016/04/21 12:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:07:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
>>>> duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as
>>>> higher priority, though exactly which one is indeterminate.
>>>
>>> The patch attatched edits the above to the following.
>>>
>>>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
>>>> duplicates some of the matching standbys will be considered as
>>>> higher priority, though they are chosen in an indeterminate way.
>>>
>>> Is this makes sense?
>>
>> I don't see what the problem is with the existing language. I don't
>> find your rewrite to be clearer.
>
> My first sentense shows my concern. I don't want make something
> clear but want to fix the description that seems to me to be
> wrong.
>
> If the exising description fits the case that two or more
> matching standbys are choosed as 'higher priority', I'm quite bad
> in reading..
ISTM, the sentence describes what happens in a *single instance* of
encountering duplicate (same name found in primary_conninfo of 2 or more
standbys). It's still one name but which of the standbys claims the spot
(for that name) of being a synchronous standby with given priority is
indeterminate.
Now, there can be multiple instances of encountering duplicates, each for
a different sync slot. But this particular sentence seems to be talking
about what's the case for any given slot.
Does that make sense?
Thanks,
Amit
