On 07/06/2015 06:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> pro-JSON: >> >> * standard syntax which is recognizable to sysadmins and devops. >> * can use JSON/JSONB functions with ALTER SYSTEM SET to easily make >> additions/deletions from the synch rep config. >> * can add group labels (see below) > > If we go this way, I think that managing a JSON blob with a GUC > parameter is crazy, this is way longer in character size than a simple > formula because of the key names. Hence, this JSON blob should be in a > separate place than postgresql.conf not within the catalog tables, > manageable using an SQL interface, and reloaded in backends using > SIGHUP.
I'm not following this at all. What are you saying here? >> I don't really see any possible end to the possible permutations, which >> is why it would be good to establish some real use cases from now in >> order to figure out what we really want to support. Absent that, my >> inclination is that we should implement the simplest possible thing >> (i.e. no nesting) for 9.5. > > I am not sure I agree that this will simplify the work. Currently > s_s_names has already 1 level, and we want to append groups to each > element of it as well, meaning that we'll need at least 2 level of > nesting. Well, we have to draw a line somewhere, unless we're going to support infinite recursion. And if we are going to support infinitie recursion, and kind of compact syntax for a GUC isn't even worth talking about ... -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
