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+jJw4vt+wfs-OEb-ZRbQ2FoWVw-aSAfBUyQdQH-71k3ywQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 16 July 2015 at 18:27, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Group labels are essential.
>
> OK, so this is leading us to the following points:
> - Use a JSON object to define the quorum/priority groups for the sync state.
> - Store it as a GUC, and use the check hook to validate its format,
> which is what we have now with s_s_names
> - Rely on SIGHUP to maintain an in-memory image of the quorum/priority
> sync state
> - Have the possibility to define group labels in this JSON blob, and
> be able to use those labels in a quorum or priority sync definition.
> - For backward-compatibility, use for example s_s_names = 'json' to
> switch to the new system.

Personally, I think we're going to find that using JSON for this
rather than a custom syntax makes the configuration strings two or
three times as long for

They may well be 2-3 times as long. Why is that a negative?
 
no discernable benefit.

Benefits:
* More readable
* Easy to validate
* No additional code required in the server to support this syntax (so no bugs)
* Developers will immediately understand the format
* Easy to programmatically manipulate in a range of languages

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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2