From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [9.1] pg_stat_get_backend_server_addr |
Date: | 2010-05-28 15:02:52 |
Message-ID: | 201005281502.o4SF2q320124@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-05-28 at 10:21 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> ... indeed. Is it worth burdening the pg_stats mechanism with this?
> > > >> The use case seems vanishingly thin.
> > >
> > > > I am confused how this is different from inet_server_addr() and
> > > > inet_server_port().
> > >
> > > I think the point is to let someone find out *from another session*
> > > which server port number a particular session is using. I fail to see
> > > a significant use case for that, though.
> >
> > Uh, aren't they all using the same server port number, e.g. 5432? Is
> > the issue different IP addresses for the same server?
>
> Yes, I would like to know who is connecting to what IP address. It's
> useful if you have HA setups and you need to check which way your
> connections are going.
OK, at least now I understand the goal.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-05-28 16:19:38 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-05-28 15:01:58 | Re: [9.1] pg_stat_get_backend_server_addr |