On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> 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.
OK, done so.
>> 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?
I have the applname stuff, and updated the log messages to use the
node name for clarity.
The patch to address those points is attached.
Regards,
--
Michael
