Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?

From: Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?
Date: 2024-02-19 23:34:22
Message-ID: CAB8KJ=hdKdg+UeXhReeHpHA6N6v3e0qFF+ZsPFHk9_ThWKf=2A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

Hi

With the addition of "pg_sync_replication_slots()", there is now a use-case for
including "dbname" in "primary_conninfo" and the docs have changed from
stating [1]:

Do not specify a database name in the primary_conninfo string.

to [2]:

For replication slot synchronization (see Section 48.2.3), it is also
necessary to specify a valid dbname in the primary_conninfo string. This will
only be used for slot synchronization. It is ignored for streaming.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/runtime-config-replication.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-REPLICATION-STANDBY
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/runtime-config-replication.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-REPLICATION-STANDBY

However, when setting up a standby (with the intent of creating a logical
standby) with pg_basebackup, providing the -R/-write-recovery-conf option
results in a "primary_conninfo" string being generated without a "dbname"
parameter, which requires a manual change should one intend to use
"pg_sync_replication_slots()".

I can't see any reason for continuing to omit "dbname", so suggest it should
only continue to be omitted for 16 and earlier; see attached patch.

Note that this does mean that if the conninfo string provided to pg_basebackup
does not contain "dbname", the generated "primary_conninfo" GUC will default to
"dbname=replication". It would be easy enough to suppress this, but AFAICS
there's no way to tell if it was explicitly supplied by the user, in which case
it would be surprising if it were omitted from the final "primary_conninfo"
string.

The only other place where GenerateRecoveryConfig() is called is pg_rewind;
I can't see any adverse affects from the proposed change. But it's perfectly
possible there's something blindingly obvious I'm overlooking.

Regards

Ian Barwick

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg_basebackup-write-dbname.v0001.patch text/x-patch 1.5 KB

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-02-19 23:51:17 Re: Fix race condition in InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot()
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-02-19 23:28:28 Re: Injection points: some tools to wait and wake