On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for updating the patch! Again I tested the feature and found
>> something
>> wrong. I set synchronous_standby_num to 2 and started three standbys. Two
>> of
>> them are included in synchronous_standby_names, i.e., they are synchronous
>> standbys. That is, the other one standby is always asynchronous. When
>> I shutdown one of synchronous standbys and executed the write transaction,
>> the transaction was successfully completed. So the transaction doesn't
>> wait for
>> two sync standbys in that case. Probably this is a bug.
> Well, that's working in my case :)
Oh, that worked in my machine, too, this time... I did something wrong.
Sorry for the noise.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
