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.
> 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?
