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

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwGHDWLeUY0yGfLFmwZphq_x-tsdjvd7DibcxEOQCy8VvQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > > >> (2)
>> > > >> There will be still many source comments and documentations that
>> > > >> we need to update, for example, in high-availability.sgml. We need to
>> > > >> check and update them throughly.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> (3)
>> > > >> The priority value is assigned to each standby listed in s_s_names
>> > > >> even in quorum commit though those priority values are not used at all.
>> > > >> Users can see those priority values in pg_stat_replication.
>> > > >> Isn't this confusing? If yes, it might be better to always assign 1 as
>> > > >> the priority, for example.
>>
>> > > Regarding the item (2), Sawada-san told me that he will work on it after
>> > > this CommitFest finishes. So we would receive the patch for the item from
>> > > him next week. If there will be no patch even after the end of next week
>> > > (i.e., April 14th), I will. Let's wait for Sawada-san's action at first.
>> >
>> > Sounds reasonable; I will look for your update on 14Apr or earlier.
>>
>> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
>> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
>> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

Sorry for the delay.

I will review Sawada-san's patch and commit something in next three days.
So next target date is April 19th.

>> > Since you do want (3) to change, please own it like any other open item,
>> > including the mandatory status updates.
>>
>> Likewise.

As I told firstly this is not a bug. There are some proposals for better design
of priority column in pg_stat_replication, but we've not reached the consensus
yet. So I think that it's better to move this open item to "Design Decisions to
Recheck Mid-Beta" section so that we can hear more opinions.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PANIC in pg_commit_ts slru after crashes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Inadequate parallel-safety check for SubPlans