Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2015-07-01 14:47:52
Message-ID: 5593FD98.7030602@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6/26/15 2:53 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I would also suggest that if I lose this battle and
> we decide to go with a single stringy GUC, that we at least use JSON
> instead of defining our out, proprietary, syntax?

Does JSON have a natural syntax for a set without order?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-07-01 14:50:20 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-07-01 14:45:36 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2