Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoDrd_V4yDz30qOC+_=8Gp86ZtPeU7RhYi6_ub2OpcT2Fg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 8 September 2016 at 10:26, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.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.
>

Attached 2 patches.
000 patch changes syntax of s_s_names from 'k(n1, n2, n3)' to 'First k
(n1, n2,n3)' for PG9.6.
001 patch adds the quorum commit using syntax 'Any k (n1, n2,n3)' for PG10.

Since we already released 9.6RC1, I understand that it's quite hard to
change syntax of 9.6.
But considering that we support the quorum commit, this could be one
of the solutions in order to avoid breaking backward compatibility and
to provide useful user interface.
So I attached these patches.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yury Zhuravlev
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Next
From: Stas Kelvich
Date:
Subject: Re: Speedup twophase transactions