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
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 |
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. |