Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> PQping is supposed to be smarter about classifying errors
> >> than this.
>
> > I was not aware this was discussed last week because I am behind on
> > email. I was fixing a report from a month ago. I did explain how I was
> > doing the tests.
>
> Um, you did respond in that thread, several times even:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01102.php
> so I kind of assumed that the patch you presented this week did
> what was agreed to last week.
Yes, I do remember that, but I remember this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01095.php
What we want here is to check the result of postmaster.c'scanAcceptConnections(),
and this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01106.php
You do have to distinguish connection failures (ie connection refused)from errors that came back from the postmaster,
andthe easiest place tobe doing that is inside libpq.
which I thought meant it had to be done in libpq and we didn't have
access to the postmaster return codes in libpq.
Your changes look very good, and not something I would have been able to
code.
> I have committed a patch to make PQping do what was agreed to.
Thanks.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +