Re: Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more
> then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming
> only one synchronous standby.
>
>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
>> duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as
>> higher priority, though exactly which one is indeterminate.
>
> The patch attatched edits the above to the following.
>
>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of
>> duplicates some of the matching standbys will be considered as
>> higher priority, though they are chosen in an indeterminate way.
>
> Is this makes sense?

I don't see what the problem is with the existing language.  I don't
find your rewrite to be clearer.

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