| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Date: | 2015-05-18 11:46:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSocdBZCvMK5odTPfHW-Gmuh0J+rCzGtv1tfw1hW+56bA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> I don't think that this is going in the good direction, what was
>> suggested mainly by Robert was to use a micro-language that would
>> allow far more extensibility that what you are proposing.
>
> I agree, the micro-language would give far more extensibility. However, as
> stated before, the previous discussions concluded that GUC was a preferred
> way because it is more user-friendly.
Er, I am not sure I follow here. The idea proposed was to define a
string formatted with some infra-language within the existing GUC
s_s_names.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oskari Saarenmaa | 2015-05-18 11:56:58 | Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable |
| Previous Message | Beena Emerson | 2015-05-18 11:43:19 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |