On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:55:37AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 06/04/17 03:51, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >>>> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on > >>>> and complete them until the release. > >>>> > >>>> (1) > >>>> Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, should be > >>>> chosen when neither FIRST nor ANY is specified in s_s_names? Right now, > >>>> a priority-based sync replication is chosen for keeping backward > >>>> compatibility. However some hackers argued to change this decision > >>>> so that a quorum commit is chosen because they think that most users > >>>> prefer to a quorum.
> >> The items (1) and (3) are not bugs. So I don't think that they need to be > >> resolved before the beta release. After the feature freeze, many users > >> will try and play with many new features including quorum-based syncrep. > >> Then if many of them complain about (1) and (3), we can change the code > >> at that timing. So we need more time that users can try the feature. > > > > I've moved (1) to a new section for things to revisit during beta. If > > someone > > feels strongly that the current behavior is Wrong and must change, speak up > > as > > soon as you reach that conclusion. Absent such arguments, the behavior > > won't > > change. > > > > I was one of the people who said in original thread that I think the > default behavior should change to quorum and I am still of that opinion. This item appears under "decisions to recheck mid-beta". If anyone is going to push for a change here, now is the time. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers