Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Дата
Msg-id CANP8+j+xj4FaUSoYdS4SkShmdJw0meF28fw4Pf75xttRp1Y6qQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On 20 July 2015 at 08:18, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
 Simon Riggs wrote:

>synchronous_standby_name= is already 25 characters, so that leaves 115
characters - are they always single byte chars?

I am sorry, I did not get why there is a 140 byte limit. Can you please
explain?

Hmm, sorry, I thought Robert had said there was a 140 byte limit. I misread.

I don't think that affects my point. The choice between formats is not solely predicated on whether we have multi-line support.

I still think writing down some actual use cases would help bring the discussion to a conclusion. Inventing a general facility is hard without some clear goals about what we need to support.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Retain comments on indexes and constraints at ALTER TABLE ... TY
Следующее
От: Haribabu Kommi
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Parallel Seq Scan