On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for updating the patch! Again I tested the feature and found >> something >> wrong. I set synchronous_standby_num to 2 and started three standbys. Two >> of >> them are included in synchronous_standby_names, i.e., they are synchronous >> standbys. That is, the other one standby is always asynchronous. When >> I shutdown one of synchronous standbys and executed the write transaction, >> the transaction was successfully completed. So the transaction doesn't >> wait for >> two sync standbys in that case. Probably this is a bug. > Well, that's working in my case :)
Oh, that worked in my machine, too, this time... I did something wrong. Sorry for the noise. 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
