Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
| От | Ron Johnson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANzqJaD+kp+zVy71d7mS4jo+9FzKfBtDG16XKcqJQxix2YwbOg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? |
| Список | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:45 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
The person on the client side isn't thinking about what's going in the PG server's logs.
This is something that should be fixed. Very low priority, after the data corruption and feature bugs, and useful new features added, but either return an error code if the client user doesn't have access to that database, or remove the option.
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: