Re: Bug? 'psql -l' in pg_ctl?

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: grasshacker(at)over-yonder(dot)net, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug? 'psql -l' in pg_ctl?
Date: 2000-11-29 06:15:46
Message-ID: 20001129151546S.t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Probably we really need here is a kind of ping tool for PostgreSQL,
> > instead of using psql.
>
> > You could directory invoke postmaster but problem is there is no
> > reliable way to detect if PostgreSQL up and running other than
> > trying to make an actual communication with backend...
>
> I thought about watching for the postmaster.pid file to appear,
> but that happens before the system is really up and running
> --- the startup process isn't finished, and could still fail.
> (Writing the pidfile later doesn't seem like a good answer to that,
> since that'd weaken its main purpose of interlocking against
> multiple postmaster startups.)
>
> Trying to connect does seem to be the most reliable way to verify
> that the postmaster is open for business.
>
> (BTW, a short-term answer for grasshacker is not to use -w in his
> pg_ctl start script ...)

Agreed.

Do you think it's a good idea to invent a new command such as
"pg_ping" or should we add a new option to psql instead?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-11-29 06:34:20 Re: Bug? 'psql -l' in pg_ctl?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-11-29 05:17:26 Re: primary key