| From: | Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-01-23 17:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | CADAkt-h6qpgxYr=fJ7Mu-oVnRV=taxfRc3+NKaV2rZ4Q1RTw1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>> Changing up the subject line because this is no longer a work in
>> progress nor is it pg_ping anymore.
>
> OK, I committed this. However, I have one suggestion. Maybe it would
> be a good idea to add a -c or -t option that sets the connect_timeout
> parameter. Because:
>
> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com
> <grows old, dies>
Oh, hrmm. Yes, I will address that with a follow up patch. I guess in
my testing I was using a host that responded properly with port
unreachable or TCP RST or something.
Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if
specified at the command line?
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-23 17:27:45 | Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-23 17:19:08 | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) |