Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/6/17 13:24, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 06/06/17 15:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 6/6/17 06:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as the fallback_application_name, but in some

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

2017-06-06 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 06/06/17 15:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/17 06:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as >>> the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, >>> which could

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/6/17 06:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as >> the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, >> which could be different. See attached patch to correct this.

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

2017-06-06 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as > the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, > which could be different. See attached patch to correct this. > Hmm, well the differentiation has a