On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2015-06-25 PM 01:01, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> and that's actually equivalent to that in >>>> the grammar: 1(AAA,BBB,CCC). >>> >>> I don't think that they are the same. In the case of 1(AAA,BBB,CCC), while >>> two servers AAA and BBB are running, the master server may return a success >>> of the transaction to the client just after it receives the ACK from BBB. >>> OTOH, in the case of AAA,BBB, that never happens. The master must wait for >>> the ACK from AAA to arrive before completing the transaction. And then, >>> if AAA goes down, BBB should become synchronous standby. >> >> Ah. Right. I missed your point, that's a bad day... We could have >> multiple separators to define group types then: >> - "()" where the order of acknowledgement does not matter >> - "[]" where it does not. > > For '[]', I guess you meant "where it does."
Yes, thanks :p -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
