| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: display hot standby state in psql prompt |
| Date: | 2026-01-27 03:46:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHQi4yZQHbi4H6Fnu9u+j2dkRaPCskpD4110Eo63aT-3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 1:05 AM Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi Fujii
>
> On 12/11/2025 04:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I'm fine with the initial proposal. I think showing whether the connected
> > server is a primary or standby in the prompt would be helpful when managing
> > multiple servers. OTOH, I'm not sure how useful it would be to display
> > whether the current transaction is read-only.
> >
> > That said, this is just my view, so I'd like to hear what others think.
>
> Since we haven't heard any objections from the other reviewers, do you
> think we should switch back to the initial "primary" or "standby" proposal?
Yeah, I'm fine with switching back to the original proposal.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2026-01-27 03:53:43 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Dmitrii Bondar | 2026-01-27 03:34:51 | Pgbench: remove synchronous prepare |