Re: pgping?
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgping? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwayahduJa8VaYffsq2Ask7aEqs=QehhN8s6xs+ehLk7eQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pgping? (Gunnar <tongji@netcologne.de>) |
| Список | pgsql-admin |
On Saturday, December 13, 2025, Gunnar <tongji@netcologne.de> wrote:
On 12/13/25 15:54, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Friday, December 12, 2025, Gunnar <tongji@netcologne.de> wrote:
my latest experience with pg_isready reminded me that it only works on a general level (cluster ready generally) though.
If you include a database to the command it still reports true even if the database you want to address does not exist.
That said I remember that I read this was broken since ... forever, which means nobody cares.It isn’t broken - it is working precisely as intended and required for the use cases it’s meant to solve. That’s why no one is fixing it. These people that want it to solve additional use cases need to step up and implement some new features for it.
hm, one might argue, that if the use case 'pg_isready -d database' is mentioned in the manual this could be seen as the aspiration, or maybe even commitment to that feature.
Even the description of pg_isready --help mentions a "connection check to a database", not a cluster.
Do I misinterpret the manual/help? If that was the case my next question was ... what is the purpose of the option -d, --dbname=DBNAME ?
As I wrote in the other thread while rephrasing what the docs say: it avoids an inconsequential error message in the server log since the backend protocol requires any connection attempt to include those fields and sometime the defaults aren’t correct.
David J,
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: