On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 10:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > + <para> > + Note that while WAL will be flushed with this setting, > + <application>pg_receivewal</application> never applies it, so > + <xref linkend="guc-synchronous-commit"/> must not be set to > + <literal>remote_apply</literal> if > <application>pg_receivewal</application> > + is the only synchronous standby. Similarly, if > + <application>pg_receivewal</application> is part of a quorum-based > + set of synchronous standbys, it won't count towards the quorum if > + <xref linkend="guc-synchronous-commit"/> is set to > + <literal>remote_apply</literal>. > + </para> > > I think we should really document the caveat with priority-based sets > of standbys as much as quorum-based sets. For example if a user sets > synchronous_commit = remote_apply in postgresql.conf, and then sets > s_s_names to '2(pg_receivewal, my_connected_standby)' to get a > priority-based set, then you have the same problem, and pg_receivewal > is not the only synchronous standby in this configuration. The patch > does not cover that case properly.
I understand the concern, I'm just worried that too much accuracy may render the sentence hard to read. How about adding "or priority-based" after "quorum-based"? Yours, Laurenz Albe
