Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:26:53PM +0200, Ildar Musin wrote: >> At this point I'd like to ask community what in your opinion would be the >> best course of action and whether this feature should be implemented within >> libpq at all? Because from my POV there are factors that really depend on >> network architecture and there is probably no single right solution.
> By the way, I can see that the latest patch available does not apply at > tries to juggle with multiple concepts. I can see at least two of them: > failover_timeout and hostorder. You should split things. I have moved > the patch to next CF, waiting on author. Per the discussion about the nearby prefer-standby patch, https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/caf3+xm+8-ztokav9ghij3wfgentq97qcjxqt+rbfq6f7onz...@mail.gmail.com it seems pretty unfortunate that this patch proposes functionality that's nearly identical to something in pgJDBC, but isn't using the same terminology pgJDBC uses. It's even more unfortunate that we have three separate patch proposal threads that are touching more or less the same territory, but don't seem to be talking to each other. This one is also relevant: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1700970.crwpxno...@hammer.magicstack.net regards, tom lane
