On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:34:34PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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?
Sounds reasonable so far. > 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. Using the application_name connection parameter is fine, but I can't think of a reason to set it to "node_".$node->port instead of $node->name. And I can't think of a use for the $node->applname field once you have $node->name. What use case would benefit? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers