From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
Date: | 2015-08-04 06:05:21 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRxhoz61LLFifJLAox6ixoU0a23i9vaGGzGocT3vJ5KPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Beena Emerson wrote:
>> Since there will not be many nesting and grouping, I still prefer new
>> language to JSON.
>> I understand one can easily, modify/add groups in JSON using in built
>> functions but I think changes will not be done too often.
>>
>
> If we decided to use dedicated language, the syntax checker for that
> language is needed, via SQL or something.
Well, sure, both approaches have downsides.
> Otherwise we will not be able to know whether the parsing that value
> will be done correctly, until reloading or restarting server.
And this is the case of any format as well. String format validation
for a GUC occurs when server is reloaded or restarted, one advantage
of JSON is that the parser validator is already here, so we don't need
to reinvent a new machinery for that.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Beena Emerson | 2015-08-04 06:27:35 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2015-08-04 05:57:12 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |