On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >>>> >>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is >>>> not *only* a list of names anymore. >>>> >>>> synchronous_standby_config? >>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? >>> >>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave >>> it as is. >> >> +1 > > +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync > that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that > effort.
We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica. I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it. -- Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers