Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 5 April 2016 at 12:26, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Multiple standbys with the same name may connect to the master.
>>> In this case, users might want to specifiy k<=N. So k<=N seems not invalid
>>> setting.
>>
>>
>> Confusing as that is, it is already the case; k > N could make sense. ;-(
>>
>> However, in most cases, k > N would not make sense and we should issue a
>> WARNING.
>
> Somebody (maybe Horiguchi-san and Sawada-san) commented this upthread
> and the code for that test was included in the old patch (but I excluded it).
> Now the majority seems to prefer to add that test, so I just revived and
> revised that test code.

The regression test codes seems not to be included in latest patch, no?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada