On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
>>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>>>
>>> synchronous_standby_config?
>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
>>
>>
>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
>> it as is.
>
>
> +1
+1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
effort.
--
Michael
