Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2016-03-28 06:59:21
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Also I felt a sense of discomfort regarding using [ and ] as a special
>> character for priority method.
>> Because (, ) and [, ] are a little similar each other, so it would
>> easily make many syntax errors when nested style is supported.
>> And the synopsis of that in documentation is odd;
>> synchronous_standby_names = 'N [ node_name [, ...] ]'
>> This topic has been already discussed before but, we might want to
>> change it to other characters such as < and >?
> I personally would recommend against <>. Those should mean less-than
> and greater-than, not grouping. I think you could use parentheses,
> (). There's nothing saying that has to mean any particular thing, so
> you may as well use it for the first thing implemented, perhaps. Or
> you could use [] or {}. It *is* important that you don't create
> confusing syntax summaries, but I don't think that's a reason to pick
> a nonstandard syntax for grouping.

I agree with you.
I've changed it to use parentheses.


Masahiko Sawada

Attachment Content-Type Size
muti_sync_replication_v20.patch text/x-diff 41.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2016-03-28 07:08:47 Re: Draft release notes for next week's releases
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2016-03-28 06:18:46 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics