Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
От | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160405.192305.57944288.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:00:24 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote in <CAD21AoDoq1ubY4KkKhrA9jzaVXekwAT7gV5pQJbS+wj98b9-3A@mail.gmail.com> > > For this case, the tree members of SyncRepConfig are '2[Sby1,', > > 'Sby2', "Sby3]'. This syntax is valid for the current > > specification but will surely get different meaning by the future > > changes. We should refuse this known-to-be-wrong-in-future syntax > > from now. > > I couldn't get your point but why will the above syntax meaning be > different from current meaning by future change? > I thought that another method uses another kind of parentheses. If the 'another kind of parehtheses' is a pair of brackets, an application_name 'tokyo[A]', for example, is currently allowed to occur unquoted in the list but will become disallowed by the syntax change. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: