| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_system_identifier() |
| Date: | 2013-08-28 23:58:49 |
| Message-ID: | 521E8EB9.3070908@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/26/13 8:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> I think it's also noteworthy that Slony and londiste both rely on the user
>>> >>specifying node identifiers. They don't try to be magic about it. I think
>>> >>there's 2 advantages there:
>>> >>
>>> >>- Code is simpler
>>> >>- Users can choose a naming schema that makes sense for them
>> >Definitely agreed on that.
> A user can already specify the unique standby name by using
> application_name in primary_conninfo. So, the remaining thing
> that we should do is to expose the primary_conninfo, i.e.,
> commit the merge-recovery.conf-into-postgresql.conf patch ;P
Is uniqueness actually enforced there? I believe that was part of the original problem...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2013-08-29 02:30:34 | Re: Valgrind Memcheck support |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-08-28 23:58:04 | Re: Clarification on materialized view restriction needed |