On 07/04/2014 08:50 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@dalibo.com> wrote: >> Is there a reason for not using this in synchronous_standby_names, >> perhaps falling back to application_name if not set? > > You mean that if synchronous_standby_names is an empty it automatically > should be set to cluster_name? Or, you mean that if application_name is not > set in primary_conninfo the standby should automatically use its cluster_name > as application_name in primary_conninfo? I'm afraid that those may cause > the trouble such as that standby is unexpectedly treated as synchronous one > even though a user want to set up it as asynchronous one by emptying > synchronous_standby_names in the master.
No, I mean that synchronous_standby_names should look at cluster_name first, and if it's not set then unfortunately look at application_name for backward compatibility. Using application_name for this always seems like a hack to me, and cluster_name is a much better fit. We should have created cluster_name back when we created synchronous_standby_names. -- Vik -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers