Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On 1/23/14, 4:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Why wouldn't that be necessary with your approach, too? I mean, if
>> there's a GUC that controls the event source name, then it can be
>> changed between restarts, regardless of what you call it.
> I don't know if it's practical, but the logical conclusion here would be
> to use an identifier that you cannot change, such as the system identifier.
That particular ID would be a horrid choice, because we don't try very
hard to ensure it's unique. In particular, a standby server on the same
machine as the master (not an uncommon case, at least for testing
purposes) would be a guaranteed fail with that approach.
I'm still not clear on why we can't just use the port number.
regards, tom lane
