Re: Adding a pg_servername() function

From: Laetitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding a pg_servername() function
Date: 2023-08-09 06:42:42
Message-ID: CAB_COdhqnX+rNTxcL1B1Ni0V4Xp6aErhX4BdEc28i8rJgfAwKQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear all,

First, thank you so much for your interest in this patch. I didn't think I
would have so many answers.

I agree that the feature I'm suggesting could be done with a few tricks. I
meant to simplify the life of the user by providing a simple new feature.
(Also, I might have trust issues with DNS due to several past production
disasters.)

My question is very simple: Do you oppose having this feature in Postgres?

In other words, should I stop working on this?

Have a nice day,

Lætitia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2023-08-09 07:13:53 Re: Incorrect handling of OOM in WAL replay leading to data loss
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-08-09 06:28:23 Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup