Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>

From: Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>

To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2013-01-24T19:10:01Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

pg_isready_timeout_v3.diff (application/octet-stream) patch v3

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> set_pglocale_pgservice() should be called?
>
> I think that the command name (i.e., pg_isready) should be given to
> PQpingParams() as fallback_application_name. Otherwise, the server
> by default uses "unknown" as the application name of pg_isready.
> It's undesirable.
>
> Why isn't the following message output only when invalid option is
> specified?
>
>     Try \"%s --help\" for more information.

I've updated the patch to address these three issues. Attached.

>
> When the conninfo string including the hostname or port number is
> specified in -d option, pg_isready displays the wrong information
> as follows.
>
>     $ pg_isready -d "port=9999"
>     /tmp:5432 - no response
>

This is what i asked about in my previous email about precedence of
the parameters. I can parse that with PQconninfoParse, but what are
the rules for merging both individual and conninfo params together?

For example if someone did: pg_isready -h foo -d "host=bar port=4321" -p 1234

What should the connection parameters be?

> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao