Tom Lane escribió: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > > On 1/23/14, 4:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Why wouldn't that be necessary with your approach, too? I mean, if > >> there's a GUC that controls the event source name, then it can be > >> changed between restarts, regardless of what you call it. > > > I don't know if it's practical, but the logical conclusion here would be > > to use an identifier that you cannot change, such as the system identifier. > > That particular ID would be a horrid choice, because we don't try very > hard to ensure it's unique. In particular, a standby server on the same > machine as the master (not an uncommon case, at least for testing > purposes) would be a guaranteed fail with that approach. > > I'm still not clear on why we can't just use the port number.
I wonder if it would make sense to generate a unique name at some initial point in the history of the service (perhaps at initdb time, or at the first postmaster start) and store this name in a special, separate file in PGDATA. On subsequent starts we read the name from there and always use it consistently. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
