Hi, On 2015-06-25 PM 01:01, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> and that's actually equivalent to that in >>> the grammar: 1(AAA,BBB,CCC). >> >> I don't think that they are the same. In the case of 1(AAA,BBB,CCC), while >> two servers AAA and BBB are running, the master server may return a success >> of the transaction to the client just after it receives the ACK from BBB. >> OTOH, in the case of AAA,BBB, that never happens. The master must wait for >> the ACK from AAA to arrive before completing the transaction. And then, >> if AAA goes down, BBB should become synchronous standby. > > Ah. Right. I missed your point, that's a bad day... We could have > multiple separators to define group types then: > - "()" where the order of acknowledgement does not matter > - "[]" where it does not.
For '[]', I guess you meant "where it does." > You would find the old grammar with: > 1[AAA,BBB,CCC] > 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