Re: display hot standby state in psql prompt
| От | Fujii Masao |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: display hot standby state in psql prompt |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAHGQGwE0-XjD6USv-v90Ks04S2b6qGWvJ8HUyYtyvx9g9U3B-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: display hot standby state in psql prompt (Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 5:14 PM Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de> wrote: > > > > On 10/11/2025 08:30, Fujii Masao wrote: > > If the main goal of this feature is to help users easily determine > > whether they're connected to a primary or a standby, > > seems simply showing whether the server is in hot standby > > should be sufficient. I'm not sure how useful it would be in practice > > to show information based on default_transaction_read_only or > > transaction_read_only. > > This "primary" or "standby" approach was actually the initial proposal, > but it evolved after a few reviews. Extending it to use > transaction_read_only and default_transaction_read_only adds real value > to the feature, but doing so requires either: > > 1. Marking transaction_read_only as GUC_REPORT (controversial and > rejected in the past), or > 2. Querying transaction_read_only with SHOW every time the prompt is > displayed within a transaction block (IMO minimal overhead -- but > unconventional?). > > Although I lean toward the initial proposal, I can totally live with > either approach, since both would be able to distinguish if a server is > in hot standby or not. > > Should we switch back to the initial proposal? I'm fine with the initial proposal. I think showing whether the connected server is a primary or standby in the prompt would be helpful when managing multiple servers. OTOH, I'm not sure how useful it would be to display whether the current transaction is read-only. That said, this is just my view, so I'd like to hear what others think. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: