From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cluster name in ps output |
Date: | 2014-07-04 07:43:12 |
Message-ID: | 53B65B10.8070408@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/04/2014 08:50 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>> Is there a reason for not using this in synchronous_standby_names,
>> perhaps falling back to application_name if not set?
>
> You mean that if synchronous_standby_names is an empty it automatically
> should be set to cluster_name? Or, you mean that if application_name is not
> set in primary_conninfo the standby should automatically use its cluster_name
> as application_name in primary_conninfo? I'm afraid that those may cause
> the trouble such as that standby is unexpectedly treated as synchronous one
> even though a user want to set up it as asynchronous one by emptying
> synchronous_standby_names in the master.
No, I mean that synchronous_standby_names should look at cluster_name
first, and if it's not set then unfortunately look at application_name
for backward compatibility.
Using application_name for this always seems like a hack to me, and
cluster_name is a much better fit. We should have created cluster_name
back when we created synchronous_standby_names.
--
Vik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2014-07-04 07:51:30 | Re: Issue while calling new PostgreSQL command from a Java Application |
Previous Message | Ashoke | 2014-07-04 07:00:48 | Re: Issue while calling new PostgreSQL command from a Java Application |