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

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, grasshacker(at)over-yonder(dot)net, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug? 'psql -l' in pg_ctl?
Date: 2000-12-09 20:13:27
Message-ID: 200012092013.PAA25845@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Seems like this functionality belongs in pg_ctl.

> > I'd lean towards a pg_ping (Peter E., any comment here?)
>
> > Really we'd need to change the postmaster too, because what we need to
> > do is send a query "are you ready to accept connections?" that the
> > postmaster will answer without an authentication exchange. AFAIR this
> > is *not* immediately evident from the postmaster's current behavior ---
> > I think it will challenge you for a password even before the startup
> > subprocess is done.
>
> I fixed that today; if the database status is not open-for-business,
> the postmaster will tell you so right away instead of making you go
> through the authentication protocol first. So a pg_ping could be
> written that just sends a connection request packet and sees what
> comes back.
>
> However, if we're running in TRUST or IDENT mode, it's possible that
> that technique will lead to launching a backend to no purpose. So
> maybe we ought to extend the postmaster protocol to have a "query
> status" packet type. Thoughts?
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Schmidt 2000-12-09 21:41:52 Postgres failover implementation
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2000-12-09 15:37:52 Re: ilike and --enable-multibyte=KOI8