On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm thinking that it's less confusing to report always 0 as the priority of > async standby whatever the setting of synchronous_standby_names is. > Thought?
Or we could have priority being reported to NULL for async standbys as well, the priority number has no meaning for them anyway... > If we adopt this idea, in a quorum-based sync replication, I think that > the priorities of all the standbys listed in synchronous_standby_names > should be 1 instead of NULL. That is, those standbys have the same > (highest) priority, and which means that any of them can be chosen as > sync standby. Thought? Mainly my fault here to suggest that standbys in a quorum set should have a priority set to NULL. My 2c on the matter is that I would be fine with either having the async standbys having a priority of NULL or using a priority of 1 for standbys in a quorum set. Though, honestly, I find that showing a priority number for something where this has no real meaning is even more confusing.. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers