On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking that it's less confusing to report always 0 as the priority of
> async standby whatever the setting of synchronous_standby_names is.
> Thought?
Or we could have priority being reported to NULL for async standbys as
well, the priority number has no meaning for them anyway...
> If we adopt this idea, in a quorum-based sync replication, I think that
> the priorities of all the standbys listed in synchronous_standby_names
> should be 1 instead of NULL. That is, those standbys have the same
> (highest) priority, and which means that any of them can be chosen as
> sync standby. Thought?
Mainly my fault here to suggest that standbys in a quorum set should
have a priority set to NULL. My 2c on the matter is that I would be
fine with either having the async standbys having a priority of NULL
or using a priority of 1 for standbys in a quorum set. Though,
honestly, I find that showing a priority number for something where
this has no real meaning is even more confusing..
--
Michael