On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So I'd like to propose to keep the backward compatibility fully for s_s_names
>> (i.e., both "standby_list" and "N (standby_list)" mean the priority method)
>> at the first commit, then continue discussing this and change it if we reach
>> the consensus until PostgreSQL 10 is actually released. Thought?
> +1 on that.

+1.  That is the safest option to proceed.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to