Re: DRAFT 9.6 release

On 2016/08/31 10:35, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/30/2016 06:32 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/08/31 10:25, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Also, if I do this:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2 ( g1, g2, g3 )
>>>
>>> ... and g1, g2 and g3 are *groups* of three standbys each, what happens?
>>>  Does it wait for one or more responses from g1 and from g2, or does
>>> getting two responses from g1 trigger a commit?
>>
>> We do not support specifying groups either.  Names refer to the actual
>> standby names.  Groups part of the earlier proposal(s) was taken out of
>> the patch, IIRC.
>
> ??? It's always been possible for me to give multiple standbys the same
> name, making a de-facto group.

Oh, I didn't know that.  I thought you were referring to some new feature.
 I remember discussions about various syntaxes for specifying standby
groups (json, etc.) as part of the proposed feature.  Sorry about the noise.

Thanks,
Amit