| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |
| Date: | 2016-07-06 19:43:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20160706194310.GL21416@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
All,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I have one question; why do we call the column "conn_info" instead of
> > > "conninfo" which is basically used in other places? "conninfo" is better to me.
> >
> > No real reason for one or the other to be honest. If you want to
> > change it you could just apply the attached.
>
> I was of two minds myself, and found no reason to change conn_info, so I
> decided to keep what was submitted. If you want to change it, I'm not
> opposed.
>
> Don't forget to bump catversion.
'conninfo' certainly seems to be more commonly used and I believe is
what was agreed to up-thread.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-06 20:22:07 | Re: Question about an inconsistency - 1 |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2016-07-06 17:42:24 | Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP |