Re: Enhance pg_stat_wal_receiver view to display connected host - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Enhance pg_stat_wal_receiver view to display connected host
Date
Msg-id 20180112091610.GA2802@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Enhance pg_stat_wal_receiver view to display connected host  (Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 04:32:54PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:55:04PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > > Before posting the patch, first I did the same, upon further study
> > > I didn't find any scenario where the value is not present in
> > > conn->connhost[conn->whichhost].host and present in conn->pghost.
> > >
> > > If user provides "host" as connection option, the value is present
> > > in both the variables. Even if the connection is unix domain socket,
> > > there is a value in conn->connhost[conn->whichhost].host.
> > >
> > > In case if user provides only hostaddr and host connection option,
> > > then in that case, both the members are NULL. So even if we add
> > > that case, it will be dead code.
> >
> > Hm. Wouldn't it matter for cases where caller has not yet established a
> > connection to the server but still calls PQhost to get the host string?
> >
>
> Yes I agree that the above scenario leads to a wrong result with the
> earlier patch,
> Updated patch attached by including the conn->pghost. Thanks for the review.

Could you begin a new thread by the way? As you are the one who
discovered the inconsistency and the one who wrote a patch this looks
adapted to me. Or perhaps I should?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Next
From: Andrey Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification