On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 04/08/16 06:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking that the syntax for quorum method would use '[ ... ]'
>>>> but it will be confused with '( ... )' priority method used.
>>>> 001 patch adds 'Any N ( ... )' style syntax but I know that we still
>>>> might need to discuss about better syntax, discussion is very welcome.
>>>> Attached draft patch, please give me feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am +1 for using either "{}" or "[]" to define a quorum set, and -1
>>> for the addition of a keyword in front of the integer defining for how
>>> many nodes server need to wait for.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for reply.
>> "{}" or "[]" are not bad but because these are not intuitive, I
>> thought that it will be hard for uses to use different method for each
>> purpose.
>>
>
> I think the "any" keyword is more explicit and understandable, also closer
> to SQL. So I would be in favor of doing that.+1 Also I like the following Simon's idea. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/canp8+jlhfbvv_pw6grasnupw+bdk5dctu7gwpnap-+-zwvk...@mail.gmail.com ----------------------- * first k (n1, n2, n3) – does the same as k (n1, n2, n3) does now * any k (n1, n2, n3) – would release waiters as soon as we have the responses from k out of N standbys. “any k” would be faster, so is desirable for performance and resilience ----------------------- 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
