Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Attached latest v12 patch.
>>> I changed behavior of "N (standby_list)" to use the priority method
>>> and incorporated some review comments so far. Please review it.
>>
>> Some comments...
>>
>> +    Another example of <varname>synchronous_standby_names</> for multiple
>> +    synchronous standby is:
>> Here standby takes an 's'.
>>
>> +    candidates. The master server will wait for at least 2 replies from them.
>> +    <literal>s4</> is an asynchronous standby since its name is not in the list.
>> +   </para>
>> "will wait for replies from at least two of them".
>>
>> + * next-highest-priority standby. In quorum method, the all standbys
>> + * appearing in the list are considered as a candidate for quorum commit.
>> "the all" is incorrect. I think you mean "all the" instead.
>>
>> + * NIL if no sync standby is connected. In quorum method, all standby
>> + * priorities are same, that is 1. So this function returns the list of
>> This is not true. Standys have a priority number assigned. Though it does
>> not matter much for quorum groups, it gives an indication of their position
>> in the defined list.
>>
>>  #synchronous_standby_names = ''    # standby servers that provide sync rep
>>  -               # number of sync standbys and comma-separated list of application_name
>>  +               # synchronization method, number of sync standbys
>>  +               # and comma-separated list of application_name
>>                  # from standby(s); '*' = all
>> The formulation is funny here: "sync rep synchronization method".
>>
>> I think that Fujii-san has also some doc changes in his box. For anybody
>> picking up this patch next, it would be good to incorporate the things
>> I have noticed here.
>
> Yes, I will. Thanks!

Attached is the modified version of the patch. Barring objections, I will
commit this version.

Even after committing the patch, there will be still many source comments
and documentations that we need to update, for example,
in high-availability.sgml. We need to check and update them throughly later.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers