Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Robert Haas wrote:
>Maybe shoehorning this into the GUC mechanism is the wrong thing, and
>what we really need is a new config file for this.  The information
>we're proposing to store seems complex enough to justify that.
>

I think the consensus is that JSON is better.
And using a new file with multi line support would be good.

Name of the file: how about pg_syncinfo.conf? 


Backward compatibility: synchronous_standby_names will be supported.
synchronous_standby_names='pg_syncinfo' indicates use of new file.


JSON format:
It would contain 2 main keys: "sync_info" and  "groups"
The "sync_info" would consist of "quorum"/"priority" with the count and
"nodes"/"group" with the group name or node list.
The optional "groups" key would list out all the "group" mentioned within
"sync_info" along with the node list.


Ex:
1.
{       "sync_info":       {               "quorum":2,               "nodes":               [
"node1","node2", "node3"               ]       }
 
}

2.
{       "sync_info":       {               "quorum":2,               "nodes":               [
{"priority":1,"group":"cluster1"},                      {"quorum":2,"group": "cluster2"},        "node99"
]      },       "groups":       {               "cluster1":["node11","node12"],
"cluster2":["node21","node22","node23"]      }
 
}

Thoughts?



-----
Beena Emerson

--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Support-for-N-synchronous-standby-servers-take-2-tp5849384p5860791.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.