| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep Design |
| Date: | 2010-12-31 13:39:19 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikfZWhxMgQc9uVbqnVAcyUMZtwwH99GoSW92L4a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 31.12.2010 14:40, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> Someone may have proposed this before, but one way of getting standby
>> naming "for free" would be to make the standby names the same as the
>> roles used to log in, rather than adding a separate parameter. We
>> could just recommend to people that they use a separate, descriptive
>> role name for each standby. Then the synchronous_standbys parameter -
>> when added - would mean "a standby from one of these roles".
>
> Seems a bit weird. It's not a lot of effort to give each standby a name. But
> if you want something automatic, how about gethostname() ?
Uh, wow, no way. That would be making a critical aspect of system
reliability depend on something way, way outside of our configuration.
What's weird about using the role name? That's our standard way of
distinguishing between two or more users. Why invent something new?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-12-31 13:48:18 | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-31 13:35:25 | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |