Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

From: Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
Date: 2013-02-06 16:15:06
Message-ID: CADAkt-h4d4aKS85znuavgQTDPjZRgLvw2qk9K0QfhDmJ9unumA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> Phil Sorber escribió:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> OK, here is the patch that handles the connection string in dbname.
>>>>>> >> I'll post the other patch under a different posting because I am sure
>>>>>> >> it will get plenty of debate on it's own.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm sorry, can you remind me what this does for us vs. the existing coding?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's supposed to handle the connection string passed as dbname case to
>>>>>> be able to get the right output for host:port.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely the idea is that you can also give it a postgres:// URI, right?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Here is it. I like this approach more than the previous one, but I'd
>>> like some feedback.
>
> The patch looks complicated to me. I was thinking that we can address
> the problem
> just by using PQconninfoParse() and PQconndefaults() like uri-regress.c does.
> The patch should be very simple. Why do we need so complicated code?

Did you like the previous version better?

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADAkt-hnB3OhCpkR+PCg1c_Bjrsb7J__BPV+-jrjS5opjR2oww@mail.gmail.com

>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-02-06 16:15:43 Re: sql_drop Event Trigger
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2013-02-06 16:11:13 Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)