<p>El 05/03/2011 11:18, "Fujii Masao" <<a href="mailto:masao.fujii@gmail.com">masao.fujii@gmail.com</a>>
escribió:<br/> ><br /> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs <<a
href="mailto:simon@2ndquadrant.com">simon@2ndquadrant.com</a>>wrote:<br /> > > I'm not in favour.<br /> >
><br/> > > If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no<br /> > > preferred
order,how will we maintain that order?<br /> > ><br /> > > What are the rules for maintaining this
arbitraryorder?<br /> ><br /> > Probably what Robert, Yeb and I think is to leave the current<br /> > sync
standbyin sync mode until either its connection is closed<br /> > or higher priority standby connects. No
complicatedrule is<br /> > required.<br /> ><p>It's not better to remove the code to manage * in
synchronous_standby_names?Once we do that there is no chance of having 2 standbys with the same priority.<p>After all,
mostof the times the dba will need to change the * for a real list of names anyway. At least in IMHO<p>--<br /> Jaime
Casanova <a href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.com">www.2ndQuadrant.com</a>