Обсуждение: Obsolete description in pg_ctl-ref.sgml
Hi, I found some obsolete descriptions in pg_ctl-ref.sgml. Could you apply the attached patch? > Notes > > Waiting for complete startup is not a well-defined operation and > might fail if access control is set up so that a local client cannot > connect without manual interaction (e.g., password authentication). > For additional connection variables, see Section 31.13, and for > passwords, also see Section 31.14. The above also seems to be obsolete, thanks to recently-introduced PQping. Can we remove that? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Вложения
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > I found some obsolete descriptions in pg_ctl-ref.sgml. > Could you apply the attached patch? I'm just as happy to retain "saves and reuses" vs. just "reuses", but the rest of this looks right, so committed. >> Notes >> >> Waiting for complete startup is not a well-defined operation and >> might fail if access control is set up so that a local client cannot >> connect without manual interaction (e.g., password authentication). >> For additional connection variables, see Section 31.13, and for >> passwords, also see Section 31.14. > > The above also seems to be obsolete, thanks to recently-introduced > PQping. Can we remove that? Should we remove only the first sentence and keep the second one, or is it more appropriate to remove the whole thing? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Notes >>> >>> Waiting for complete startup is not a well-defined operation and >>> might fail if access control is set up so that a local client cannot >>> connect without manual interaction (e.g., password authentication). >>> For additional connection variables, see Section 31.13, and for >>> passwords, also see Section 31.14. >> >> The above also seems to be obsolete, thanks to recently-introduced >> PQping. Can we remove that? > > Should we remove only the first sentence and keep the second one, or > is it more appropriate to remove the whole thing? At least the reference to section 31.14 is needless since password authentication doesn't affect the pg_ctl -w for now. But, on the second thought, it can still fail because of miss-configuration of connection variable, for example PGHOST. So we might have to leave the first sentence with minor change. How about?: ----------------- Notes Waiting for complete startup is not a well-defined operation and might fail if access control is set up so that a local client cannot connect because of wrong configuration (e.g., name of host to connect to). For additional connection variables, see Section 31.13. ----------------- Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Notes >>>> >>>> Waiting for complete startup is not a well-defined operation and >>>> might fail if access control is set up so that a local client cannot >>>> connect without manual interaction (e.g., password authentication). >>>> For additional connection variables, see Section 31.13, and for >>>> passwords, also see Section 31.14. >>> >>> The above also seems to be obsolete, thanks to recently-introduced >>> PQping. Can we remove that? >> >> Should we remove only the first sentence and keep the second one, or >> is it more appropriate to remove the whole thing? > > At least the reference to section 31.14 is needless since password > authentication doesn't affect the pg_ctl -w for now. But, on the second > thought, it can still fail because of miss-configuration of connection > variable, for example PGHOST. I thought PQping() was supposed to handle that correctly. There are four return values: PQPING_OK, PQPING_REJECT, PQPING_NO_RESPONSE, PQPING_NO_ATTEMPT. I believe the last is intended to cover blatant misconfiguration. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you're referring to. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> At least the reference to section 31.14 is needless since password >> authentication doesn't affect the pg_ctl -w for now. But, on the second >> thought, it can still fail because of miss-configuration of connection >> variable, for example PGHOST. > > I thought PQping() was supposed to handle that correctly. There are > four return values: PQPING_OK, PQPING_REJECT, PQPING_NO_RESPONSE, > PQPING_NO_ATTEMPT. I believe the last is intended to cover blatant > misconfiguration. True. But even though the server is running normally, the misconfiguration might still make PQping return PQPING_NO_ATTEMPT and make pg_ctl -w fail to wait for complete startup. Currently misconfiguration of password authentication doesn't interfere with pg_ctl -w, so we can remove the reference to that. But other misconfigurations can be still harm, so I thought the sentence still needs to be in the document. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> At least the reference to section 31.14 is needless since password >>> authentication doesn't affect the pg_ctl -w for now. But, on the second >>> thought, it can still fail because of miss-configuration of connection >>> variable, for example PGHOST. >> >> I thought PQping() was supposed to handle that correctly. There are >> four return values: PQPING_OK, PQPING_REJECT, PQPING_NO_RESPONSE, >> PQPING_NO_ATTEMPT. I believe the last is intended to cover blatant >> misconfiguration. > > True. But even though the server is running normally, the misconfiguration > might still make PQping return PQPING_NO_ATTEMPT and make pg_ctl -w > fail to wait for complete startup. Currently misconfiguration of password > authentication doesn't interfere with pg_ctl -w, so we can remove the > reference to that. But other misconfigurations can be still harm, so I thought > the sentence still needs to be in the document. Hmm. I'm inclined to just remove that sentence. The fact that you can make the operation fail by pointing it at someplace where there's not a server listening doesn't really seem to merit a disclaimer. I think waiting IS a well-defined operation now; it just won't succeed if you configure it in a way that doesn't make sense. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmm. I'm inclined to just remove that sentence. The fact that you
> can make the operation fail by pointing it at someplace where there's
> not a server listening doesn't really seem to merit a disclaimer. I
> think waiting IS a well-defined operation now; it just won't succeed
> if you configure it in a way that doesn't make sense.
+1
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> Hmm. I'm inclined to just remove that sentence. The fact that you >> can make the operation fail by pointing it at someplace where there's >> not a server listening doesn't really seem to merit a disclaimer. I >> think waiting IS a well-defined operation now; it just won't succeed >> if you configure it in a way that doesn't make sense. > > +1 On further review, removing only the first sentence doesn't seem very sensible - one of the two links is also present just a few lines up, and mentioning just the other one with no context seems pointless. So I'm just going to remove the whole paragraph. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On further review, removing only the first sentence doesn't seem very > sensible - one of the two links is also present just a few lines up, > and mentioning just the other one with no context seems pointless. So > I'm just going to remove the whole paragraph. Fair enough. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center