Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, please let's use the custom language, and let's not care of not
>> more than 1 level of nesting so as it is possible to represent
>> pg_stat_replication in a simple way for the user.
>
> "not" is used twice in this sentence in a way that renders me not able
> to be sure that I'm not understanding it not properly.

4 times here. Score beaten.

Sorry. Perhaps I am tired... I was just wondering if it would be fine
to only support configurations up to one level of nested objects, like
that:
2[node1, node2, node3]
node1, 2[node2, node3], node3
In short, we could restrict things so as we cannot define a group of
nodes within an existing group.
-- 
Michael