| From: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_primary_conninfo |
| Date: | 2010-12-28 16:50:24 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimz7Y32SfkKKb-zWGytsuXPyv4NYyf0oEKTLFAK@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I can see the point of, say, a primary_host_address() function returning
> inet, which would be way better on both those dimensions than the
> current proposal. But I'm not sure what else would be needed.
>
>
+1, since it bypasses security risks associated with exposing
username/password.
Ability to see port number will be a useful addition.
Another case to consider is what if slave is connected to a local server
over unix-domain sockets? Returning NULL might make it ambiguous with the
case where the instance has been promoted out of standby.
Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-28 16:51:00 | Re: pg_dump --split patch |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-28 16:43:12 | Re: pg_primary_conninfo |