On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> On 5 April 2016 at 12:26, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Multiple standbys with the same name may connect to the master. >>>> In this case, users might want to specifiy k<=N. So k<=N seems not invalid >>>> setting. >>> >>> >>> Confusing as that is, it is already the case; k > N could make sense. ;-( >>> >>> However, in most cases, k > N would not make sense and we should issue a >>> WARNING. >> >> Somebody (maybe Horiguchi-san and Sawada-san) commented this upthread >> and the code for that test was included in the old patch (but I excluded it). >> Now the majority seems to prefer to add that test, so I just revived and >> revised that test code. > > The regression test codes seems not to be included in latest patch, no?
I am looking at the latest patch now, and they are not included. It would be good to get those tests bundled in for a last lookup I think. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers