Re: Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> ISTM, the sentence describes what happens in a *single instance* of
> encountering duplicate (same name found in primary_conninfo of 2 or more
> standbys).  It's still one name but which of the standbys claims the spot
> (for that name) of being a synchronous standby with given priority is
> indeterminate.
>
> Now, there can be multiple instances of encountering duplicates, each for
> a different sync slot.  But this particular sentence seems to be talking
> about what's the case for any given slot.

Right, that's my reading also.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company