On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@berkus.org> wrote: > On 08/09/2017 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >>>> 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? >> >> FWIW, I still see no harm in keeping backward-compatibility here, so I >> am in favor of a statu-quo. >> > > I am vaguely in favor of making quorum the default over "ordered". > However, given that anybody using sync commit without > understanding/customizing the setup is going to be sorry regardless, > keeping backwards compatibility is acceptable. >
Thank you for the comment. FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse users and we want to break the backward compatibility, I'd rather like to remove that style in PostgreSQL 10 and to raise an syntax error to user for more safety. Also, since the syntax 'a, b' might be opaque for new users who don't know the history of s_s_names syntax, we could unify its syntax to '[ANY|FIRST] N (a, b, ...)' syntax while keeping the '*'. 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
