Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1L+39988Rzq4hD0h1y+s0234PH3G-u7NbUmfwE438mbGQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:07 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > PSA the patch for implementing it. It is basically same as Ian's one. > > However, this patch still cannot satisfy the condition 3). > > > > `pg_basebackup -D data_N2 -d "user=postgres" -R` > > -> dbname would not be appeared in primary_conninfo. > > > > This is because `if (connection_string)` case in GetConnection() explicy override > > a dbname to "replication". I've tried to add a dummy entry {"dbname", NULL} pair > > before the overriding, but it is no-op. Because The replacement of the dbname in > > pqConnectOptions2() would be done only for the valid (=lastly specified) > > connection options. > > Oh, this patch missed the straightforward case: > > pg_basebackup -D data_N2 -d "user=postgres dbname=replication" -R > -> dbname would not be appeared in primary_conninfo. > > So I think it cannot be applied as-is. Sorry for sharing the bad item. > Can you please share the patch that can be considered for review? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: