On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 4:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 12:32 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I see your point and agree that users need to be careful. I was trying
> > to compare it with other places like the conninfo used with a
> > subscription where no separate dbname needs to be provided. Now, here
> > the situation is not the same because the same conninfo is used for
> > different purposes (walreceiver doesn't require dbname (dbname is
> > ignored even if present) whereas slotsyncworker requires dbname). I
> > was just trying to see if we can avoid having a new GUC for this
> > purpose. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?
> >
>
> Bertrand, Dilip, and others involved in this thread or otherwise, see
> if you can share an opinion on the above point because it would be
> good to get some more opinions before we decide to add a new GUC (for
> dbname) for slotsync worker.
IMHO, as of now we can only use the primary_coninfo and let the user
modify this and add the dbname to this. In the future, if this
creates some discomfort or we see some complaints about the usage then
we can expand the behavior by providing an additional GUC with dbname.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com