Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?
От | Ian Lawrence Barwick |
---|---|
Тема | Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB8KJ=hdKdg+UeXhReeHpHA6N6v3e0qFF+ZsPFHk9_ThWKf=2A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?
Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? RE: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Hi With the addition of "pg_sync_replication_slots()", there is now a use-case for including "dbname" in "primary_conninfo" and the docs have changed from stating [1]: Do not specify a database name in the primary_conninfo string. to [2]: For replication slot synchronization (see Section 48.2.3), it is also necessary to specify a valid dbname in the primary_conninfo string. This will only be used for slot synchronization. It is ignored for streaming. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/runtime-config-replication.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-REPLICATION-STANDBY [2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/runtime-config-replication.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-REPLICATION-STANDBY However, when setting up a standby (with the intent of creating a logical standby) with pg_basebackup, providing the -R/-write-recovery-conf option results in a "primary_conninfo" string being generated without a "dbname" parameter, which requires a manual change should one intend to use "pg_sync_replication_slots()". I can't see any reason for continuing to omit "dbname", so suggest it should only continue to be omitted for 16 and earlier; see attached patch. Note that this does mean that if the conninfo string provided to pg_basebackup does not contain "dbname", the generated "primary_conninfo" GUC will default to "dbname=replication". It would be easy enough to suppress this, but AFAICS there's no way to tell if it was explicitly supplied by the user, in which case it would be surprising if it were omitted from the final "primary_conninfo" string. The only other place where GenerateRecoveryConfig() is called is pg_rewind; I can't see any adverse affects from the proposed change. But it's perfectly possible there's something blindingly obvious I'm overlooking. Regards Ian Barwick
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: