On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Yes, I think that's correct.
Just adding that I am the only one advocating for switching the priority number to NULL for async standbys, and that this proposal is visibly outvoted as it breaks backward-compatibility with the 0-priority setting. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
