On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> The main thing for me was that it logged something. The above two ways
> occurred to me and figured we'd end up discussing it.
> The first way is slightly confusing for the reason stated, agreed. By
> using the same form of words as is used currently, all existing scripts
> that search for connection details will all still work. The second way
> is more informative, if you don't know "replication" is a
> pseudo-database, but it will break all existing scripts.
> My own feeling was that breaking existing scripts was not a price worth
> paying for the extra information in the second form of the message,
> since its just the same words re-arranged.
Since the meaning of the first message is different between 8.4 and 9.0
(in 8.4, the normal connection to the database 'replication', in 9.0, the
connection for replication from the standby server), we would still need
to change the existing scripts. No?
What is worse is that we can connect to the real database 'replication'
in 9.0. So we might be unable to discern that normal connection from the
replication connection by seeing the first message.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-03-24 10:29:56|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add connection messages for streaming
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2010-03-24 07:39:34|
|Subject: Re: WIP: preloading of ispell dictionary|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: User Itagaki||Date: 2010-03-24 08:42:21|
|Subject: pgstatsinfo - pg_reporter: New Directory|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-03-24 06:25:39|
|Subject: pgsql: Update description of walrcv_receive() function to match reality.|