On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > The main thing for me was that it logged something. The above two ways > occurred to me and figured we'd end up discussing it. > > The first way is slightly confusing for the reason stated, agreed. By > using the same form of words as is used currently, all existing scripts > that search for connection details will all still work. The second way > is more informative, if you don't know "replication" is a > pseudo-database, but it will break all existing scripts. > > My own feeling was that breaking existing scripts was not a price worth > paying for the extra information in the second form of the message, > since its just the same words re-arranged.
Since the meaning of the first message is different between 8.4 and 9.0 (in 8.4, the normal connection to the database 'replication', in 9.0, the connection for replication from the standby server), we would still need to change the existing scripts. No? What is worse is that we can connect to the real database 'replication' in 9.0. So we might be unable to discern that normal connection from the replication connection by seeing the first message. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
