| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Support escape sequence for cluster_name in postgres_fdw.application_name |
| Date: | 2022-02-09 07:55:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20220209.165549.93763781529472908.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry for missing this.
At Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:26:39 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
>
> On 2022/01/27 17:10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I don't object to adding more meaningful replacements, but more escape
> > sequence makes me anxious about the increased easiness of exceeding
> > the size limit of application_name.
>
> If this is really an issue, it might be time to reconsider the size
> limit of application_name. If it's considered too short, the patch
> that enlarges it should be proposed separately.
That makes sense.
> > Considering that it is used to
> > identify fdw-initinator server, we might need to add padding (or
> > rather truncating) option in the escape sequence syntax, then warn
> > about truncated application_names for safety.
>
> I failed to understand this. Could you tell me why we might need to
> add padding option here?
My point was "truncating" option, which limits the length of the
replacement string. But expanding the application_name limit is more
sensible.
> > Is the reason for 'C' in upper-case to avoid possible conflict with
> > 'c' of log_line_prefix?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I'm not sure that preventive measure is worth
> > doing. Looking the escape-sequence spec alone, it seems to me rather
> > strange that an upper-case letter is used in spite of its lower-case
> > is not used yet.
>
> I have no strong opinion about using %C. If there is better character
> for the escape sequence, I'm happy to use it. So what character is
> more proper? %c?
I think so.
> > Otherwise all looks fine to me except the lack of documentation.
>
> The patch updated postgres-fdw.sgml, but you imply there are other
> documents that the patch should update? Could you tell me where the
> patch should update?
Mmm. I should have missed that part.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-02-09 08:14:43 | Re: is the base backup protocol used by out-of-core tools? |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2022-02-09 07:48:10 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |