Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
От | Petr Jelinek |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4e064753-a0ea-fd3a-4cd5-498d54f56c10@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/08/16 06:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I was thinking that the syntax for quorum method would use '[ ... ]' >>> but it will be confused with '( ... )' priority method used. >>> 001 patch adds 'Any N ( ... )' style syntax but I know that we still >>> might need to discuss about better syntax, discussion is very welcome. >>> Attached draft patch, please give me feedback. >> >> I am +1 for using either "{}" or "[]" to define a quorum set, and -1 >> for the addition of a keyword in front of the integer defining for how >> many nodes server need to wait for. > > Thank you for reply. > "{}" or "[]" are not bad but because these are not intuitive, I > thought that it will be hard for uses to use different method for each > purpose. > I think the "any" keyword is more explicit and understandable, also closer to SQL. So I would be in favor of doing that. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: