Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> Sorry, I have attached an empty patch. This is another one that should
> be with content.

I pushed this after whacking it around some, and cleaning up some
sort-of-related problems in the syncrep parser/lexer.

There remains a point that I'm not very happy about, which is the code
in check_synchronous_standby_names to emit a WARNING if the num_sync
setting is too large.  That's a pretty bad compromise: we should either
decide that the case is legal or that it is not.  If it's legal, people
who are correctly using the case will not thank us for logging a WARNING
every single time the postmaster gets a SIGHUP (and those who aren't using
it correctly will have their systems freezing up, warning or no warning).
If it's not legal, we should make it an error not a warning.

My inclination is to just rip out the warning.  But I wonder whether the
desire to have one doesn't imply that the semantics are poorly chosen
and should be revisited.
        regards, tom lane