Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Amir Rohan <amir(dot)rohan(at)mail(dot)com> wrote:
> It seems like:
> 1) There's a need to support structured data in configuration for future
> needs as well, it isn't specific to this feature.
> 2) There should/must be a better way to validate configuration then
> to restarting the server in search of syntax errors.
>
> Creating a whole new configuration file for just one feature *and* in a
> different
> format seems suboptimal. What happens when the next 20 features need
> structured
> config data, where does that go? will there be additional JSON config files
> *and* perhaps
> new mini-language values in .conf as development continues? How many
> dedicated
> configuration files is too many?

Well, I think that if we create our own mini-language, it may well be
possible to make the configuration for this compact enough to fit on
one line. If we use JSON, I think there's zap chance of that. But...
that's just what *I* think.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company