On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada 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. > > Okay, but ... > >> FWIW the reason of current behavior is that it would be useful for the >> user who is willing to switch from ANY to FIRST. They can know which >> standbys will become sync or potential. > > ... does this mean you personally want to keep the current behavior? If not, > has some other person stated a wish to keep the current behavior?
No, I want to change the current behavior. IMO it's better to set priority 1 to all standbys in quorum set. I guess there is no longer person who supports the current behavior. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
