Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date
Msg-id 5811.1443053487@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  ("Amir Rohan" <amir.rohan@mail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, I think that if we create our own mini-language, it may well be
> possible to make the configuration for this compact enough to fit on
> one line.  If we use JSON, I think there's zap chance of that.  But...
> that's just what *I* think.

Well, that depends on what you think the typical-case complexity is
and on how long a line will fit in your editor window ;-).

I think that we can't make much progress on this argument without a pretty
concrete idea of what typical and worst-case configurations would look
like.  Would someone like to put forward examples?  Then we could try them
in any specific syntax that's suggested and see how verbose it gets.

FWIW, I tend to agree that if we think common cases can be held to,
say, a hundred or two hundred characters, that we're best off avoiding
the challenges of dealing with multi-line postgresql.conf entries.
And I'm really not much in favor of a separate file; if we go that way
then we're going to have to reinvent a huge amount of infrastructure
that already exists for GUCs.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!