Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqTF618_AbLx+X7YoE1bL-fbG1rpXyrqGE=-SC-qXGzdHw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication,
cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:34:34PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> I guess that to complete your idea we could allow PostgresNode to get >> >> a custom name for its log file through an optional parameter like >> >> logfile => 'myname' or similar. And if nothing is defined, process >> >> falls back to applname. So this would give the following: >> >> ${testname}_${logfile}.log >> > >> > Sure. I don't think we should the name only for the log file, though, >> > but also for things like the "## " informative messages we print here >> > and there. That would make the log file simpler to follow. Also, I'm >> > not sure about having it be optional. (TBH I'm not sure about applname >> > either; why do we keep that one?) >> >> OK, so let's do this: the node name is a mandatory argument of >> get_new_node, which is passed to "new PostgresNode" like the port and >> the host, and it is then used in the log file name as well as in the >> information messages you are mentioning. That's a patch simple enough. >> Are you fine with this approach? > > Sounds reasonable so far. OK, done so. >> Regarding the application name, I still think it is useful to have it >> though. pg_rewind should actually use it, and the other patch adding >> the recovery routines will use it. > > Using the application_name connection parameter is fine, but I can't think of > a reason to set it to "node_".$node->port instead of $node->name. And I can't > think of a use for the $node->applname field once you have $node->name. What > use case would benefit? I have the applname stuff, and updated the log messages to use the node name for clarity. The patch to address those points is attached. Regards, -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: