On 2015-06-26 PM 02:59, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2015-06-26 AM 12:49, Sawada Masahiko wrote: >> >> For example, >> - s_s_name = '1(a, b), c, d' >> The priority of both 'a' and 'b' are 1, and 'c' is 2, 'd' is 3. >> i.g, 'b' and 'c' are potential sync node, and the quorum commit is >> enable only between 'a' and 'b'. >> >> - s_s_name = 'a, 1(b,c), d' >> priority of 'a' is 1, 'b' and 'c' are 2, 'd' is 3. >> So the quorum commit with 'b' and 'c' will be enabled after 'a' down. >> > > Do we really need to add a number like '1' in '1(a, b), c, d'? > > The order of writing names already implies priorities like 2 & 3 for c & d, > respectively, like in your example. Having to write '1' for the group '(a, b)' > seems unnecessary, IMHO. Sorry if I have missed any previous discussion where > its necessity was discussed. > > So, the order of writing standby names in the list should declare their > relative priorities and parentheses (possibly nested) should help inform about > the grouping (for quorum?) >
Oh, I missed Michael's latest message that describes its necessity. So, the number is essentially the quorum for a group. Sorry about the noise. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
