| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [9.1] pg_stat_get_backend_server_addr |
| Date: | 2010-05-28 14:21:23 |
| Message-ID: | 201005281421.o4SELNq13210@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... indeed. Is it worth burdening the pg_stats mechanism with this?
> >> The use case seems vanishingly thin.
>
> > I am confused how this is different from inet_server_addr() and
> > inet_server_port().
>
> I think the point is to let someone find out *from another session*
> which server port number a particular session is using. I fail to see
> a significant use case for that, though.
Uh, aren't they all using the same server port number, e.g. 5432? Is
the issue different IP addresses for the same server?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-28 14:26:52 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-28 14:19:02 | Re: [9.1] pg_stat_get_backend_server_addr |