On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Attached first version dedicated language patch (document patch is not yet.)
>>
>> Thanks for the patch! Will review it.
>>
>> I think that it's time to write the documentation patch.
>>
>> Though I've not read the patch yet, I found that your patch
>> changed s_s_names so that it rejects non-alphabet character
>> like *, according to my simple test. It should accept any
>> application_name which we can use.
>
> Cool. Planning to look at it as well. Could you as well submit a
> regression test based on the recovery infrastructure and submit it as
> a separate patch? There is a version upthread of such a test but it
> would be good to extract it properly.
Yes, I will implement regression test patch and documentation patch as well.
Attached latest version patch supporting s_s_names = '*'.
Unlike currently behaviour a bit, s_s_names can have only one '*' character.
e.g, The following setting will get syntax error.
s_s_names = '*, node1,node2'
s_s_names = `2[node1, *, node2]`
when we use '*' character as s_s_names element, we must set s_s_names
like follows.
s_s_names = '*'
s_s_names = '2[*]'
BTW, we've discussed about mini language syntax.
IIRC, the syntax uses [] and () like,
'N[node1, node2, ...]', to define priority standbys.
'N(node1, node2, ...)', to define quorum standbys.
And current patch behaves so.
Which type of parentheses should be used for this syntax to be more clarity?
Or other character should be used such as <>, // ?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada