I never saw a followup to this. Is someone working on a ping protocol
extension, or should we revert pg_ctl to using template1 on the ground
that it does a poor man's ping anyway?
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>> I now notice that "pg_ctl -w start" fails if the postgres db is
>>> missing. I am not sure that changing pg_ctl to use this rather than
>>> template1 was a good thing, and it can't be overridden. I suggest we
>>> revert that particular change - it seems to me to confer little to
>>> no benefit, unlike the case with createdb etc.
>> pg_ctl -w is already incredibly fragile because it needs a working
>> password-free login name. Rather than worrying about whether the
>> database name exists, what we ought to do is invent the long-awaited
>> "ping" extension to the postmaster protocol --- something that would
>> just ask "are you up and ready to accept connections" without having
>> to specify a valid user *or* database name.
>> You can sort of do this today if you are willing to examine the error
>> message that comes back from the postmaster, but I think it'd be cleaner
>> to have an official protocol extension.
> Actually, it looks like pg_ctl already does this:
> if ((conn = PQsetdbLogin(NULL, portstr, NULL, NULL,
> "postgres", NULL, NULL)) != NULL &&
> (PQstatus(conn) == CONNECTION_OK ||
> PQnoPasswordSupplied) == 0)))
> success = true;
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-12-02 22:45:10|
|Subject: Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-12-02 22:41:34|
|Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype|