Robert Haas wrote: >Maybe shoehorning this into the GUC mechanism is the wrong thing, and >what we really need is a new config file for this. The information >we're proposing to store seems complex enough to justify that. >
I think the consensus is that JSON is better. And using a new file with multi line support would be good. Name of the file: how about pg_syncinfo.conf? Backward compatibility: synchronous_standby_names will be supported. synchronous_standby_names='pg_syncinfo' indicates use of new file. JSON format: It would contain 2 main keys: "sync_info" and "groups" The "sync_info" would consist of "quorum"/"priority" with the count and "nodes"/"group" with the group name or node list. The optional "groups" key would list out all the "group" mentioned within "sync_info" along with the node list. Ex: 1. { "sync_info": { "quorum":2, "nodes": [ "node1", "node2", "node3" ] } } 2. { "sync_info": { "quorum":2, "nodes": [ {"priority":1,"group":"cluster1"}, {"quorum":2,"group": "cluster2"}, "node99" ] }, "groups": { "cluster1":["node11","node12"], "cluster2":["node21","node22","node23"] } } Thoughts? ----- Beena Emerson -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Support-for-N-synchronous-standby-servers-take-2-tp5849384p5860791.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers