Thom Brown wrote:
> On 22 September 2010 17:23, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> [server]
> >> guc=value
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> server.guc=value
> > ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Yes, this was my idea too. ?It uses our existing config file format.
> >
>
> So...
>
> sync_rep_services = {critical: recv=2, fsync=2, replay=1;
> important: fsync=3;
> reporting: recv=2, apply=1}
>
> becomes ...
>
> sync_rep_services.critical.recv = 2
> sync_rep_services.critical.fsync = 2
> sync_rep_services.critical.replay = 2
> sync_rep_services.important.fsync = 3
> sync_rep_services.reporting.recv = 2
> sync_rep_services.reporting.apply = 1
>
> I actually started to give this example to demonstrate how cumbersome
> it would look... but now that I've just typed it out, I've changed my
> mind. I actually like it!
It can be prone to mistyping, but it seems simple enough. We already
through a nice error for mistypes in the sever logs. :-)
I don't think we support 3rd level specifications, but we could. Looks
very Java-ish.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +