Re: DRAFT 9.6 release

On 08/31/2016 07:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:

> Yes that's the case. If for example I have a set of slaves like that:
>  application_name | replay_delta | sync_priority | sync_state
> ------------------+--------------+---------------+------------
>  node1            |            0 |             1 | sync
>  node1            |            0 |             1 | sync
>  node1            |            0 |             1 | potential
>  node2            |            0 |             2 | potential
>  node2            |            0 |             2 | potential
>  node2            |            0 |             2 | potential
>  node3            |            0 |             0 | async
>  node3            |            0 |             0 | async
>  node3            |            0 |             0 | async
> =# show synchronous_standby_names ;
>  synchronous_standby_names
> ---------------------------
>  2(node1, node2)
>
> You'd need to have the confirmation to come from two nodes with node1
> as application_name because those have the higher priority in the
> list.

So, I have to say, this doesn't *feel* like a major press-worthy feature
yet.  It will be in 10, but is it right now?


--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)