On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> On 21/09/10 11:52, Thom Brown wrote: >>> My fear would be standby.conf would be edited by users who don't >>> really know XML and then we'd have 3 different styles of config to >>> tell the user to edit. > >> I'm not a big fan of XML either. >> ... >> Then again, maybe we should go with something like json or yaml > > The fundamental problem with all those "machine editable" formats is > that they aren't "people editable". If you have to have a tool (other > than a text editor) to change a config file, you're going to be very > unhappy when things are broken at 3AM and you're trying to fix it > while ssh'd in from your phone.
Agreed. Although, if things are broken at 3AM and I'm trying to fix it while ssh'd in from my phone, I reserve the right to be VERY unhappy no matter what format the file is in. :-) > I think the "ini file" format suggestion is probably a good one; it > seems to fit this problem, and it's something that people are used to. > We could probably shoehorn the info into a pg_hba-like format, but > I'm concerned about whether we'd be pushing that format beyond what > it can reasonably handle. It's not clear how many attributes we'll want to associate with a server. Simon seems to think we can keep it to zero; I think it's positive but I can't say for sure how many there will eventually be. It may also be that a lot of the values will be optional things that are frequently left unspecified. Both of those make me think that a columnar format is probably not best. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
