On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, please let's use the custom language, and let's not care of not
>>> more than 1 level of nesting so as it is possible to represent
>>> pg_stat_replication in a simple way for the user.
>> "not" is used twice in this sentence in a way that renders me not able
>> to be sure that I'm not understanding it not properly.
> 4 times here. Score beaten.
> Sorry. Perhaps I am tired... I was just wondering if it would be fine
> to only support configurations up to one level of nested objects, like
> that:
> 2[node1, node2, node3]
> node1, 2[node2, node3], node3
> In short, we could restrict things so as we cannot define a group of
> nodes within an existing group.

I see.  Such a restriction doesn't seem likely to me to prevent people
from doing anything actually useful.  But I don't know that it buys
very much either.  It's often not very much simpler to handle 2 levels
than n levels.  However, I ain't writing the code so...

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:

Reply via email to