On 10/13/2015 11:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I thought that this feature for postgresql should be simple at first > implementation. > It would be good even if there are some restriction such as the > nesting level, the group setting. > The another new approach that I came up with is, > * Add new parameter synchronous_replication_method (say s_r_method) > which can have two names: 'priority', 'quorum' > * If s_r_method = 'priority', the value of s_s_names (e.g. 'n1,n2,n3') > is handled using priority. It's same as '[n1,n2,n3]' in dedicated > laguage. > * If s_r_method = 'quorum', the value of s_s_names is handled using > quorum commit, It's same as '(n1,n2,n3)' in dedicated language.
Well, the first question is: can you implement both of these things for 9.6, realistically? If you can implement them, then we can argue about configuration format later. It's even possible that the nature of your implementation will enforce a particular syntax. For example, if your implementation requires sync groups to be named, then we have to include group names in the syntax. If you can't implement nesting in the near future, there's no reason to have a syntax for it. > * Setting of synchronous_standby_names is same as today. That is, the > storing the nesting value is not supported. > * If we want to support more complex syntax like what we are > discussing, we can add the new value to s_r_method, for example > 'complex', 'json'. I think having two different syntaxes is a bad idea. I'd rather have a wholly proprietary configuration markup than deal with two alternate ones. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers