Re: pg_system_identifier() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: pg_system_identifier()
Date
Msg-id 521E8EB9.3070908@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_system_identifier()  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 8/26/13 8:48 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> I think it's also noteworthy that Slony and londiste both rely on the user
>>> >>specifying node identifiers. They don't try to be magic about it. I think
>>> >>there's 2 advantages there:
>>> >>
>>> >>- Code is simpler
>>> >>- Users can choose a naming schema that makes sense for them
>> >Definitely agreed on that.
> A user can already specify the unique standby name by using
> application_name in primary_conninfo. So, the remaining thing
> that we should do is to expose the primary_conninfo, i.e.,
> commit the merge-recovery.conf-into-postgresql.conf patch ;P

Is uniqueness actually enforced there? I believe that was part of the original problem...
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Master-slave visibility order