Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-25 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hi, At Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:27:07 +0900, Amit Langote wrote in <5719e05b.4030...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > Horiguchi-san, > > On 2016/04/22 14:21, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > I came to think that both of you are misunderstanding how > > synchronous standbys are

Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-22 Thread Amit Langote
Horiguchi-san, On 2016/04/22 14:21, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I came to think that both of you are misunderstanding how > synchronous standbys are choosed so I'd like to clarify the > behavior. I certainly had a different (and/or wrong) idea in mind about how this works. Thanks a lot for

Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-21 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
I came to think that both of you are misunderstanding how synchronous standbys are choosed so I'd like to clarify the behavior. At Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:09:28 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-21 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
I'm not so confident on me but, please let me continue on this a bit more for my understanding. At Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:33:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote in > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Amit Langote >

Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > ISTM, the sentence describes what happens in a *single instance* of > encountering duplicate (same name found in primary_conninfo of 2 or more > standbys). It's still one name but which of the standbys claims

Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-20 Thread Amit Langote
On 2016/04/21 12:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:07:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >>> There is no mechanism to enforce uniqueness. In case of duplicates one of the matching standbys will be considered as

Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-20 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
At Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:07:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote in > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can

Re: [HACKERS] Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.

2016-04-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, now the synchronous_standby_names can teach to ensure more > then one synchronous standbys. But the doc for it seems assuming > only one synchronous standby. > >> There is no mechanism to enforce