Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwGCML4g3Ns6HPKmRVh2NVDPyvBmPpdVmZAARkqnHH5Xdw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> All,
>
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I have one question; why do we call the column "conn_info" instead of
>> > > "conninfo" which is basically used in other places? "conninfo" is better to me.
>> >
>> > No real reason for one or the other to be honest. If you want to
>> > change it you could just apply the attached.
>>
>> I was of two minds myself, and found no reason to change conn_info, so I
>> decided to keep what was submitted.  If you want to change it, I'm not
>> opposed.
>>
>> Don't forget to bump catversion.
>
> 'conninfo' certainly seems to be more commonly used and I believe is
> what was agreed to up-thread.

+1. So since no one objects to change the column name,
I applied Michael's patch. Thanks!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set sgml-basic-offset to 1 in .dir-locals.el
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash Indexes