Hello, At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:25:49 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote in <cad21aochytb88zdc0899j7plntkwtg0gczc2m7dqlmk71vd...@mail.gmail.com> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> Attached first version dedicated language patch (document patch is not > >>> yet.) > >> > >> Thanks for the patch! Will review it. > >> > >> I think that it's time to write the documentation patch. > >> > >> Though I've not read the patch yet, I found that your patch > >> changed s_s_names so that it rejects non-alphabet character > >> like *, according to my simple test. It should accept any > >> application_name which we can use. > > > > Cool. Planning to look at it as well. Could you as well submit a > > regression test based on the recovery infrastructure and submit it as > > a separate patch? There is a version upthread of such a test but it > > would be good to extract it properly. > > Yes, I will implement regression test patch and documentation patch as well. > > Attached latest version patch supporting s_s_names = '*'. > Unlike currently behaviour a bit, s_s_names can have only one '*' character. > e.g, The following setting will get syntax error. > > s_s_names = '*, node1,node2' > s_s_names = `2[node1, *, node2]`
We could use the setting s_s_names = 'node1, node2, *' as a extended representation of old s_s_names. It tests node1, node2 as first and try any name if they failed. Similary, '2[node1, node2, *]' is also meaningful. > when we use '*' character as s_s_names element, we must set s_s_names > like follows. > > s_s_names = '*' > s_s_names = '2[*]' > > BTW, we've discussed about mini language syntax. > IIRC, the syntax uses [] and () like, > 'N[node1, node2, ...]', to define priority standbys. > 'N(node1, node2, ...)', to define quorum standbys. > And current patch behaves so. > > Which type of parentheses should be used for this syntax to be more clarity? > Or other character should be used such as <>, // ? I believed that [] and {} are used respectively for no distinct reason. I think symmetrical pair of characters is preferable for readability. Candidate pairs in ascii characters are. (), {}, [] <> {} might be a bit difficult to distinguish from [] on unclear consoles :p regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers