Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility
Date: 2012-10-23 22:22:44
Message-ID: CAFNqd5UnaVCt=+AwHnbcGJDFh27mQUMpT-GTXo0+4hjOMubk_w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 10/22/12 11:47 AM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> Also, it seems that about 75% of the patch is connection options processing. How about
> we get rid of all that and just have them specify a connection string? It would be a break
> with tradition, but maybe it's time for something new.

I'd be pretty pleased if it had just two ways to get configured:
a) A connection string (which might, in the new order of things, be a
JDBC-like URI), or
b) Environment values drawn in from PGHOST/PGPORT/...

That's pretty much enough configurability, I'd think.

> Functionality:
>
> I'm missing the typical ping functionality to ping continuously. If we're going to call
> it pg_ping, it ought to do something similar to ping, I think.

Yep, should have equivalents to:
-i, an interval between pings,
-c, a count
-w/-W, a timeout interval

Might be nice to have analogues to:
-D printing timestamp before each line
-q quiets output
-v verbose output (got it, check!)
-V version (got it, check!)
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Phil Sorber 2012-10-24 00:10:35 Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-10-23 22:12:37 Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility