Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANP8+j+xj4FaUSoYdS4SkShmdJw0meF28fw4Pf75xttRp1Y6qQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 (Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 July 2015 at 08:18, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Simon Riggs wrote:
>synchronous_standby_name= is already 25 characters, so that leaves 115
characters - are they always single byte chars?
I am sorry, I did not get why there is a 140 byte limit. Can you please
explain?
Hmm, sorry, I thought Robert had said there was a 140 byte limit. I misread.
I don't think that affects my point. The choice between formats is not solely predicated on whether we have multi-line support.
I still think writing down some actual use cases would help bring the discussion to a conclusion. Inventing a general facility is hard without some clear goals about what we need to support.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: