On 2013-07-19 14:54:16 +0530, Samrat Revagade wrote: > I was going through the archives and there was a discussion about > using ini file to setup > replication.(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4c9876b4.9020...@enterprisedb.com). > I think if we work on this proposal and separate out the replication > setup from postgresql.conf file then we can provide more granularity > while setting up the replication parameters. > for example, we can set different values of wal_sender_timeout for > each standby sever. > > So i think it is good idea to separate out the replication settings > from postgresql.conf file and put into ini file. > Once it is confirmed then we can extend the ini file to support future > developments into replication. > *for example: for failback safe standby.*
I think that introducing another configuration format is a pretty bad idea. While something new might not turn out to be as bad, we've seen how annoying a separate configuration format turned out for recovery.conf. I'd much rather go ahead and remove the nesting limit of GUCs. That should give us just about all that can be achieved with an ini file with a 1 line change. Sometime we might want to extend our format to add ini like sections but I think that *definitely* should be a separate proposal. I've even proposed that in the past in 20130225211533.gd3...@awork2.anarazel.de . I plan to propose an updated version of that patch (not allowing numeric 2nd level ids) for the next CF. So you can just do stuff like: server.foo.grand_unified_config = value. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
