Re: DRAFT 9.6 release
Amit Langote <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2016/08/31 10:35, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 08/30/2016 06:32 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2016/08/31 10:25, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Also, if I do this: >>> >>> >>> 2 ( g1, g2, g3 ) >>> >>> ... and g1, g2 and g3 are *groups* of three standbys each, what happens? >>> Does it wait for one or more responses from g1 and from g2, or does >>> getting two responses from g1 trigger a commit? >> >> We do not support specifying groups either. Names refer to the actual >> standby names. Groups part of the earlier proposal(s) was taken out of >> the patch, IIRC. > > ??? It's always been possible for me to give multiple standbys the same > name, making a de-facto group. Oh, I didn't know that. I thought you were referring to some new feature. I remember discussions about various syntaxes for specifying standby groups (json, etc.) as part of the proposed feature. Sorry about the noise. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy