Re: Cluster name in ps output

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> How about dropping the brackets, and the cluster-name concept, and
>> just doing
>>
>> postgres: 5432 checkpointer process

> -1 for my part, as I'd just end up with a bunch of those and no
> distinction between the various processes. In other words, without a
> cluster distinction, it's useless.

Yeah, after I sent that I got to the bit about running multiple
postmasters with different IP-address bindings. I agree the port number
alone wouldn't be enough in that scenario.

> Including the value of listen_addresses along w/ the port would make it
> useful. If we really don't want the cluster-name concept (which,
> personally, I like quite a bit), how about including the listen_address
> value if it isn't '*'?

Nah, let's do cluster name. That way, somebody who's only got one
postmaster isn't suddenly going to see a lot of useless clutter,
ie the user gets to decide what to add to ps output. "SHOW cluster_name"
might be useful at the application level as well, I suspect.

I still think the brackets are unnecessary though.

Also, -1 for adding another log_line_prefix escape. If you're routing
multiple clusters logging to the same place (which is already a bit
unlikely IMO), you can put distinguishing strings in log_line_prefix
already. And it's not like we've got an infinite supply of letters
for those escapes.

regards, tom lane