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 <noah@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.