On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:51:02PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> > >> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> > > >> (3) > >> > > >> The priority value is assigned to each standby listed in s_s_names > >> > > >> even in quorum commit though those priority values are not used at > >> > > >> all. > >> > > >> Users can see those priority values in pg_stat_replication. > >> > > >> Isn't this confusing? If yes, it might be better to always assign 1 > >> > > >> as > >> > > >> the priority, for example.
> >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly > >> send > >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent > >> status > >> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com > >> > Since you do want (3) to change, please own it like any other open item, > >> > including the mandatory status updates. > >> > >> Likewise. > > As I told firstly this is not a bug. There are some proposals for better > design > of priority column in pg_stat_replication, but we've not reached the consensus > yet. So I think that it's better to move this open item to "Design Decisions > to > Recheck Mid-Beta" section so that we can hear more opinions. I'm reading that some people want to report NULL priority, some people want to report a constant 1 priority, and nobody wants the current behavior. Is that an accurate summary? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
