On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 5 April 2016 at 12:26, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Multiple standbys with the same name may connect to the master.
>> In this case, users might want to specifiy k<=N. So k<=N seems not invalid
>> setting.
>
>
> Confusing as that is, it is already the case; k > N could make sense. ;-(
>
> However, in most cases, k > N would not make sense and we should issue a
> WARNING.
Somebody (maybe Horiguchi-san and Sawada-san) commented this upthread
and the code for that test was included in the old patch (but I excluded it).
Now the majority seems to prefer to add that test, so I just revived and
revised that test code.
Attached is the updated version of the patch. I also completed Amit's
and Robert's comments.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
