On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:23 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: >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> If we drop the "standby_list" syntax, I don't think that new parameter is >>>> necessary. We can keep s_s_names and just drop the support for that syntax >>>> from s_s_names. This may be ok if we're really in "break all the things" >>>> mode >>>> for PostgreSQL 10. >>> >>> Please let's not raise that as an argument again... And not break the >>> s_list argument. Many users depend on that for just single sync >>> standbys. FWIW, I'd be in favor of backward compatibility and say that >>> a standby list is a priority list if we can maintain that. Upthread >>> agreement was to break that, I did not insist further, and won't if >>> that's still the feeling. >> >> I wonder why you think that the backward-compatibility for standby_list is >> so "special". We renamed pg_xlog directory to pg_wal and are planning to >> change recovery.conf API at all, though they have bigger impacts on >> the existing users in terms of the backward compatibility. OTOH, so far, >> changing GUC between major releases happened several times. > > Silent failures for existing failover deployments is a pain to solve > after doing upgrades. That's my only concern. Changing pg_wal would > result in a hard failure when upgrading. And changing the meaning of > the standby list (without keyword ANY or FIRST!) does not fall into > that category... So yes just removing support for standby list would > result in a hard failure, which would be fine for the > let-s-break-all-things move. > >> But I'm not against keeping the backward compatibility for standby_list, >> to be honest. My concern is that the latest patch tries to support >> the backward compatibility "partially" and which would be confusing to users, >> as I told upthread. > If we try to support backward compatibility, I'd personally do it > fully, and have a list of standby names specified meaning a priority > list. > >> 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. I'll update the patch. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers