Re: Configuring synchronous replication
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-09-21T23:37:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: > >> On 21/09/10 11:52, Thom Brown wrote: > >>> My fear would be standby.conf would be edited by users who don't > >>> really know XML and then we'd have 3 different styles of config to > >>> tell the user to edit. > > > >> I'm not a big fan of XML either. > >> ... > >> Then again, maybe we should go with something like json or yaml > > > > The fundamental problem with all those "machine editable" formats is > > that they aren't "people editable". ?If you have to have a tool (other > > than a text editor) to change a config file, you're going to be very > > unhappy when things are broken at 3AM and you're trying to fix it > > while ssh'd in from your phone. > > Agreed. Although, if things are broken at 3AM and I'm trying to fix > it while ssh'd in from my phone, I reserve the right to be VERY > unhappy no matter what format the file is in. :-) > > > I think the "ini file" format suggestion is probably a good one; it > > seems to fit this problem, and it's something that people are used to. > > We could probably shoehorn the info into a pg_hba-like format, but > > I'm concerned about whether we'd be pushing that format beyond what > > it can reasonably handle. > > It's not clear how many attributes we'll want to associate with a > server. Simon seems to think we can keep it to zero; I think it's > positive but I can't say for sure how many there will eventually be. > It may also be that a lot of the values will be optional things that > are frequently left unspecified. Both of those make me think that a > columnar format is probably not best. Crazy idea, but could we use format like postgresql.conf by extending postgresql.conf syntax, e.g.: server1.failover = false server1.keep_connect = true -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +