On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Amir Rohan <amir.ro...@mail.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
