On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 17:29, Peter Much<p...@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:52:32AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > ! On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:42, Peter Much<p...@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> > wrote: > > Now understanding it, I bow in respect - this is indeed a fine > improvement!
Thanks :-) > ! > But _there_is_no_such_thing_ as a "fully qualified hostname"! > > ! In a very large part of the cases, the fully qualified hostname will > ! be the same as the fully qualified interface name for the only > ! interface that's configured. > > Alright, frankly and just out of band of the topic, let me say > one thing: I am installing systems for the big commercial vendors > for more than a decade now, and this matter was an ongoing annoyance > all of the time. > While at first glance it may be considered just a matter of > convenience, the real trouble starts as soon as one does > high-availability solutions; these will definitely break on such > an assumption, and we end up with patching the hostname on takeover: > so having no functional mailer, unintellegible logfiles, not knowing > for sure on which hardware we admins are logged in, and similar > ugliness more. > Here I am talking about the commercial middleware vendors, who > are really stubborn in this matter - in the OpenSource the situation > is already a thousand times better! If you have any suggestions for improvements on either the documentation on the feature itself from someone who's deploying them "for real customers", that's always interesting. -- Magnus Hagander Self: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
