On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > 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.
It has been 1 week since the previous mail. I though that there were others argued to change the behavior of old-style setting so that a quorum commit is chosen. If nobody is going to push for a change we can live with 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
