Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1
Date: 2005-11-18 14:26:50
Message-ID: 5750.1132324010@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-11-18 14:32:43 Re: BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept Postgresql on Network because of Security Vulnerabilities
Previous Message Alexey Slynko 2005-11-18 13:44:26 Optimizer bug in 8.1.0?