On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> Is "walreceiver" something that "the average DBA" is going to realize
>>> what it is? Perhaps go for something like "replication slave"?
>> I think walreceiver is very good here, and the user is already
>> confronted to such phrasing.
> I agree that walreceiver is a reasonable default to supply in this case.
+1 though I could not find the mention to "walreceiver" in the doc.
> diff --git a/src/backend/replication/libpqwalreceiver/libpqwalreceiver.c
> index c052df2..962ee04 100644
> --- a/src/backend/replication/libpqwalreceiver/libpqwalreceiver.c
> +++ b/src/backend/replication/libpqwalreceiver/libpqwalreceiver.c
> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ libpqrcv_connect(char *conninfo, XLogRecPtr startpoint)
> * "replication" for .pgpass lookup.
> snprintf(conninfo_repl, sizeof(conninfo_repl),
> - "%s dbname=replication replication=true",
> + "%s dbname=replication replication=true
Also the size of conninfo_repl needs to be enlarged.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2011-01-17 03:13:59|
|Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2011-01-17 03:00:11|
|Subject: Re: Streaming base backups|