Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: walreceiver fallback_application_name

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: walreceiver fallback_application_name
Date: 2011-01-16 17:18:28
Message-ID: AANLkTim9iTraqX3sEBCD_vR1yD94Fsxdp9R-T7n=izkC@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 17:29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Since we now show the application name in pg_stat_replication, I think
>> it would make sense to have the walreceiver set
>> fallback_application_name on the connection string, like so:
>
> Seems reasonable, but "postgres" is a mighty poor choice of name
> for that, no?  I don't have any really great substitute suggestion
> --- best I can do offhand is "walreceiver" --- but "postgres" seems
> uselessly generic, not to mention potentially confusing compared
> to the default superuser name for instance.

I agree it's not a great name.

Is "walreceiver" something that "the average DBA" is going to realize
what it is? Perhaps go for something like "replication slave"?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-16 17:18:47
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-01-16 17:18:22
Subject: Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group