Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

Well, that depends on what you think the typical-case complexity is
and on how long a line will fit in your editor window ;-).

I think that we can't make much progress on this argument without a pretty
concrete idea of what typical and worst-case configurations would look
like. Would someone like to put forward examples? Then we could try them
in any specific syntax that's suggested and see how verbose it gets.

FWIW, I tend to agree that if we think common cases can be held to,
say, a hundred or two hundred characters, that we're best off avoiding
the challenges of dealing with multi-line postgresql.conf entries.
And I'm really not much in favor of a separate file; if we go that way
then we're going to have to reinvent a huge amount of infrastructure
that already exists for GUCs.

regards, tom lane