Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwaSepzY69Jod0wsPrh8Qmu_AdMoWaQ=kq3ifJWsuD+P3w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? (Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
|
| Список | pgsql-admin |
On Monday, November 24, 2025, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:30 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:On Monday, November 24, 2025, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:The "-d, --dbname=DBNAME" option is mentioned in --help output, but pg_isready ignores nonexistent databases.Is this an application bug, a minor doc bug or am I missing something?It’s documented in the Notes section.That seems odd. Why mention an option in --help if the option isn't needed?
Because it exists - and I figure most people should use it to not put spurious errors into the logs.
David J.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: