| 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 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-16 17:18:47 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-01-16 17:18:22 | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |