El 05/03/2011 11:18, "Fujii Masao" <masao.fu...@gmail.com> escribió: > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > I'm not in favour. > > > > If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no > > preferred order, how will we maintain that order? > > > > What are the rules for maintaining this arbitrary order? > > Probably what Robert, Yeb and I think is to leave the current > sync standby in sync mode until either its connection is closed > or higher priority standby connects. No complicated rule is > required. >
It's not better to remove the code to manage * in synchronous_standby_names? Once we do that there is no chance of having 2 standbys with the same priority. After all, most of the times the dba will need to change the * for a real list of names anyway. At least in IMHO -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
