On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 11:42 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > 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.
Yes, there is, because we don't do duplicate name checking. I've changed the default so it is no longer "*" by default, to avoid complaints. > 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 > -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
