Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?
| От | Ajin Cherian |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFPTHDYnT1BMcs=C=BJeEJ85fFRbkP43Uyjqvvx-QGaN4Oq0-A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 2:04 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
About the proposed patch, pg_basebackup cannot verify the validity of
the dbname. It could be problematic.
Although I haven't looked the original thread, it seems that the
dbname is used only by pg_sync_replication_slots(). If it is true,
couldn't we make the SQL function require a database name to make a
connection, instead of requiring it in physical-replication conninfo?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
I agree. If the intention is to meet the new requirement of the sync-slot patch which requires a dbname in the primary_conninfo, then pseudo dbnames will not work, whether it be the username or just "replication". I feel if the user does not specify dbname explicitly in pg_basebackup it should be left blank in the generated primary_conninfo string as well.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: