Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?
От | Jelte Fennema-Nio |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAGECzQTh9oB3nu98DsHMpRaVaqXPDRgTDEikY82OAKYF0=hVMA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"? (Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 00:34, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Sounds like that documentation should be updated in the same way as was done for pg_basebackup/pg_receivewal in commit cca97ce6a665. When considering middleware/proxies having dbname in there can be useful even for older PG versions. > 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. Yeah, that seems like a good change. Though, I'm wondering if the version check is actually necessary.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: