Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: > Sorry, I have attached an empty patch. This is another one that should > be with content.
I pushed this after whacking it around some, and cleaning up some sort-of-related problems in the syncrep parser/lexer. There remains a point that I'm not very happy about, which is the code in check_synchronous_standby_names to emit a WARNING if the num_sync setting is too large. That's a pretty bad compromise: we should either decide that the case is legal or that it is not. If it's legal, people who are correctly using the case will not thank us for logging a WARNING every single time the postmaster gets a SIGHUP (and those who aren't using it correctly will have their systems freezing up, warning or no warning). If it's not legal, we should make it an error not a warning. My inclination is to just rip out the warning. But I wonder whether the desire to have one doesn't imply that the semantics are poorly chosen and should be revisited. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers