On 2013-07-19 14:54:16 +0530, Samrat Revagade wrote:
> I was going through the archives and there was a discussion about
> using ini file to setup
> replication.(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4C9876B4.9020803@enterprisedb.com).
> I think if we work on this proposal and separate out the replication
> setup from postgresql.conf file then we can provide more granularity
> while setting up the replication parameters.
> for example, we can set different values of wal_sender_timeout for
> each standby sever.
>
> So i think it is good idea to separate out the replication settings
> from postgresql.conf file and put into ini file.
> Once it is confirmed then we can extend the ini file to support future
> developments into replication.
> *for example: for failback safe standby.*
I think that introducing another configuration format is a pretty bad
idea. While something new might not turn out to be as bad, we've seen
how annoying a separate configuration format turned out for
recovery.conf.
I'd much rather go ahead and remove the nesting limit of GUCs. That
should give us just about all that can be achieved with an ini file with
a 1 line change. Sometime we might want to extend our format to add ini
like sections but I think that *definitely* should be a separate
proposal.
I've even proposed that in the past in
20130225211533.GD3849@awork2.anarazel.de . I plan to propose an updated
version of that patch (not allowing numeric 2nd level ids) for the next
CF.
So you can just do stuff like:
server.foo.grand_unified_config = value.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
