Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
От
Josh Berkus
Тема
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Дата
Msg-id
559B4CC4.6030301@agliodbs.com
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 "Amir Rohan" <amir.rohan@mail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 "Amir Rohan" <amir.rohan@mail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
On 07/06/2015 06:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> pro-JSON: >> >> * standard syntax which is recognizable to sysadmins and devops. >> * can use JSON/JSONB functions with ALTER SYSTEM SET to easily make >> additions/deletions from the synch rep config. >> * can add group labels (see below) > > If we go this way, I think that managing a JSON blob with a GUC > parameter is crazy, this is way longer in character size than a simple > formula because of the key names. Hence, this JSON blob should be in a > separate place than postgresql.conf not within the catalog tables, > manageable using an SQL interface, and reloaded in backends using > SIGHUP. I'm not following this at all. What are you saying here? >> I don't really see any possible end to the possible permutations, which >> is why it would be good to establish some real use cases from now in >> order to figure out what we really want to support. Absent that, my >> inclination is that we should implement the simplest possible thing >> (i.e. no nesting) for 9.5. > > I am not sure I agree that this will simplify the work. Currently > s_s_names has already 1 level, and we want to append groups to each > element of it as well, meaning that we'll need at least 2 level of > nesting. Well, we have to draw a line somewhere, unless we're going to support infinite recursion. And if we are going to support infinitie recursion, and kind of compact syntax for a GUC isn't even worth talking about ... -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата: