On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:01 PM Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] > > I really dislike having both target_sesion_attrs and > > target_server_type. It doesn't solve any actual problem. master, > > slave, prefer-save, or whatever you like could be put in > > target_session_attrs just as easily, and then we wouldn't end up with > > two keywords doing closely related things. 'master' is no more or > > less a server attribute than 'read-write'. > > Hmm, that may be OK. At first, I felt it strange to treat the server type > (primary or standby) as a session attribute. But we can see the server > type as one attribute in a sense that a session is established for. I'm > inclined to agree with: > > target_session_attr = {any | read-write | read-only | prefer-read | > primary | standby | prefer-standby} > Thanks for your suggestions. Based on the above new options that can be added to target_session_attrs, primary - it is just an alias to the read-write option. standby, prefer-standby - These options should check whether server is running in recovery mode or not instead of checking whether server accepts read-only connections or not? Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
