Hi,
On 7/16/19 12:28 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>> This is not true in all cases as since 9.6 it is possible to specify
>> multiple synchronous standbys. So if for example pg_receivewal and
>> another synchronous standby are set in s_s_names and that the number
>> of a FIRST (priority-based) or ANY (quorum set) is two, then the same
>> issue exists, but this documentation is incorrect. I think that we
>> should have a more extensive wording here, like "if pg_receivewal is
>> part of a quorum-based or priority-based set of synchronous standbys."
>
> I think this would be overly complicated.
> The wording above seems to cover the priority-based base sufficiently
> in my opinion.
> Maybe a second sentence with more detail would be better:
>
> ... must not be set to <literal>remote_apply</literal> if
> <application>pg_receivewal</application> is the only synchronous standby.
> Similarly, if <application>pg_receivewal</application> is part of
> a quorum-based set of synchronous standbys, it won't count towards
> the quorum if <xref linkend="guc-synchronous-commit"/> is set to
> <literal>remote_apply</literal>.
>
Here is the patch for that.
Best regards,
Jesper