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"?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-16 17:18:47|
|Subject: Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2011-01-16 17:18:22|
|Subject: Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums|