Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaL35mUQBu5+9zKCNeSL-vfXn=Q0oict579epBKcVRQWw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> + ereport(LOG,
>>> + (errmsg("standby \"%s\" is now the synchronous standby with priority %u",
>>> + application_name, MyWalSnd->sync_standby_priority)));
>>>
>>> s/ the / a /
>
> I have no objection to this change itself. But we have used this message
> in 9.5 or before, so if we apply this change, probably we need
> back-patching.

"the" implies that there can be only one synchronous standby at that
priority, while "a" implies that there could be more than one.  So the
situation might be different with this patch than previously.  (I
haven't read the patch so I don't know whether this is actually true,
but it might be what Thomas was going for.)

Also, I'd like to associate myself with the general happiness about
the prospect of having this feature in 9.6 (but without specifically
endorsing the code, since I have not read it).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Next
From: Anastasia Lubennikova
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.