| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_system_identifier() |
| Date: | 2013-08-26 04:12:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSx+GEROLiCMOYBCDimARQauEe=2TDSZmFEjZYnV6yBKw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
> On 8/23/13 11:23 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't generate a unique id. You could back up a standby and restore
>> it and point it at the original master and end up with two standbies with
>> the same id.
>
>
> If you want to enforce something unique throughout a cluster, I think we're
> stuck with having the cluster communicate IDs across an entire cluster.
> AFAIK that's how both Slony and londiste 3 do it.
The same applies to Postgres-XC for node identifiers. Users can adapt
the settings of their cluster to their own needs.
> I think it's also noteworthy that Slony and londiste both rely on the user
> specifying node identifiers. They don't try to be magic about it. I think
> there's 2 advantages there:
>
> - Code is simpler
> - Users can choose a naming schema that makes sense for them
Definitely agreed on that.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Dung | 2013-08-26 05:23:34 | Re: several questions about pg_dumpall, pg_start_backup, pg_basebackup and WAL |
| Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2013-08-26 02:45:53 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |