Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqTLG6ZeU-HzFqfT7XxJUp=mNf5HWK58JSR+itCgAexnkw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse
> users and we want to break the backward compatibility, I'd rather like
> to remove that style in PostgreSQL 10 and to raise an syntax error to
> user for more safety. Also, since the syntax 'a, b' might be opaque
> for new users who don't know the history of s_s_names syntax, we could
> unify its syntax to '[ANY|FIRST] N (a, b, ...)' syntax while keeping
> the '*'.

I find the removal of a syntax in release N for something introduced
in release (N - 1) a bit hard to swallow from the user prospective.
What about just issuing a warning instead and say that the use of
ANY/FIRST is recommended? It costs nothing in maintenance to keep it
around.
-- 
Michael



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Nicolas Thauvin
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign tables privileges not shown ininformation_schema.table_privileges
Следующее
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys afterinitialization