Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date
Msg-id CANP8+j+xj4FaUSoYdS4SkShmdJw0meF28fw4Pf75xttRp1Y6qQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2  (Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
List 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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Retain comments on indexes and constraints at ALTER TABLE ... TY
Next
From: Haribabu Kommi
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan