Re: pg_system_identifier()
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_system_identifier() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 521E8EB9.3070908@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_system_identifier() (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Список | 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@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: