Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> How about dropping the brackets, and the cluster-name concept, and
>> just doing
>>
>> postgres: 5432 checkpointer process
> -1 for my part, as I'd just end up with a bunch of those and no
> distinction between the various processes. In other words, without a
> cluster distinction, it's useless.
Yeah, after I sent that I got to the bit about running multiple
postmasters with different IP-address bindings. I agree the port number
alone wouldn't be enough in that scenario.
> Including the value of listen_addresses along w/ the port would make it
> useful. If we really don't want the cluster-name concept (which,
> personally, I like quite a bit), how about including the listen_address
> value if it isn't '*'?
Nah, let's do cluster name. That way, somebody who's only got one
postmaster isn't suddenly going to see a lot of useless clutter,
ie the user gets to decide what to add to ps output. "SHOW cluster_name"
might be useful at the application level as well, I suspect.
I still think the brackets are unnecessary though.
Also, -1 for adding another log_line_prefix escape. If you're routing
multiple clusters logging to the same place (which is already a bit
unlikely IMO), you can put distinguishing strings in log_line_prefix
already. And it's not like we've got an infinite supply of letters
for those escapes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
