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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
