On 12/31/2010 02:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On 31.12.2010 14:40, Robert Haas wrote:
Someone may have proposed this before, but one way of getting standby
naming "for free" would be to make the standby names the same as the
roles used to log in, rather than adding a separate parameter. We
could just recommend to people that they use a separate, descriptive
role name for each standby. Then the synchronous_standbys parameter -
when added - would mean "a standby from one of these roles".
Seems a bit weird. It's not a lot of effort to give each standby a name. But
if you want something automatic, how about gethostname() ?
Uh, wow, no way. That would be making a critical aspect of system
reliability depend on something way, way outside of our configuration.
+1
What's weird about using the role name? That's our standard way of
distinguishing between two or more users. Why invent something new?
wel a user is not a host/server for me - given there is no real benefit
from using distinct roles for each standby yet I don't see why we should
complicate the replication setup procedure by requiring 1 role per standby.
So I'm all for giving each standby a name but please make it an explicit
one and not something that is only vaguely related to the actual standby
host.
Stefan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
