>> *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.
Its not totally different way of configuration.
ini file will be parsed in the same way as postgresql.conf.
just want to separate out the replication parameters, to make simpler
configuration for future developments in the field of replication such
as failback-safe standby.
> So you can just do stuff like:
>
> server.foo.grand_unified_config = value.
But according to your approach and considering the use case of
failback safe standby
the parameters into the postgresql.conf will vary dynamically, and i
don't think so doing this in the postgresql.conf is a good idea
because it already contains whole bunch of parameters:
for example:
if i want to configure 2 servers then it will add 6 lines,for 3 -9, for 4-12
setting's for particular server will be:
considering the way of setting value to conf parameters : guc . value
standby_name.'AAA'
synchronous_transfer. commit
wal_sender_timeout.60
Regards,
Samrat
Samrat Revgade
