On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvhe...@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?

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.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to