Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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