Re: Supporting fallback RADIUS server(s)

Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> writes:
> So I'm developing a patch to fix this issue, but I'm not
> exactly sure what the configuration should look like. I see multiple
> options, but the one I like the best is the following:

> Add two new HBA configuration options: radiusfallbackservers and
> radiusfallbackports; both lists parsed with SplitIdentifierString ( la
> listen_addresses).

Why add new GUCs for that? Can't we just redefine radiusserver as a list
of servers to try in sequence, and similarly split radiusport into a list?

Or maybe better, rename it radius_servers. But what you have here seems
weird, and it certainly doesn't follow the precedent of what we did when
we replaced listen_address with listen_addresses.

regards, tom lane