Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Date: 2015-10-30 13:26:45
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY8J2Jp1fM4EmtU6=3hHLpHc9+qyOJW3OgCNRN6QTgyDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 10/28/15 4:18 AM, Victor Wagner wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:25:57 -0400
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, this assumes that all the components other than host and port
>>> are the same. Earlier there was a discussion about why the ports
>>> would ever need to be different. Well, why can't the database names
>>> be different? I could have use for that.
>>
>> Because of way postgresql replication is implemented.
>
> There are multiple types of PostgreSQL replication, and there will be
> others in the future.

That's true, but doesn't allowing every parameter to be multiply
specified greatly increase the implementation complexity for a pretty
marginal benefit? I think host and IP would hit 98% of the use cases
here.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2015-10-30 13:28:22 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Previous Message Fabio Oliveira De Mendonca 2015-10-30 13:20:30 Re: ExclusiveLock on PostgreSQL - Fabio Mendonça

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Victor Wagner 2015-10-30 14:09:47 Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-10-29 19:29:05 Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.