On 07/17/2015 04:36 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 7/16/15 12:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >They may well be 2-3 times as long. Why is that a negative? >> In my opinion, brevity makes things easier to read and understand. We >> also don't support multi-line GUCs, so if your configuration takes 140 >> characters, you're going to have a very long line in your >> postgresql.conf (and in your pg_settings output, etc.) > > Brevity goes both ways, but I don't think that's the real problem here; > it's the lack of multi-line support. The JSON that's been proposed makes > you work really hard to track what level of nesting you're at, while > every alternative format I've seen is terse enough to be very clear on a > single line.
I will point out that the proposed non-JSON syntax does not offer any ability to name consensus/priority groups. I believe that being able to name groups is vital to managing any complex synch rep, but if we add names it will make the non-JSON syntax less compact. > > I'm guessing it'd be really ugly/hard to support at least this GUC being > multi-line? Yes. Mind you, multi-line GUCs would be useful otherwise, but we don't want to hinge this feature on making that work. -- 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
