| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Gerhard Leykam" <gel123(at)sealsystems(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |
| Date: | 2009-10-15 18:21:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4AD721C8020000250002B9EA@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I would rather see us implement the hypothetical pg_ping protocol
> and remember to include the postmaster's PID in the response. One
> of the worst misfeatures of pg_ctl is the need to be able to
> authenticate itself to the postmaster, and having it rely on being
> able to actually issue a SQL command would set that breakage in
> stone.
Sounds good to me, other than it stalls pg_ctl revamp until pg_ping is
done. I don't remember a clear design of what pg_ping should look
like. Does anyone have a clear plan in their head?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-15 18:25:18 | Re: BUG #5120: Performance difference between running a query with named cursor and straight SELECT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-15 18:15:11 | Re: BUG #5118: start-status-insert-fatal |