| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: display hot standby state in psql prompt | 
| Date: | 2025-10-30 07:51:53 | 
| Message-ID: | 76528031-CBDA-4DC0-A524-FD22615BCEA5@gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
> On Oct 30, 2025, at 11:42, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 8:03 PM Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> wrote:
>> 
I did a quick test, and found a problem. I shutdown the server, and “\c” reconnecting failed, but psql still show “read/write”, which seems wrong:
```
"read/write"\c
connection to server on socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432" failed: No such file or directory
	Is the server running locally and accepting connections on that socket?
Previous connection kept
hs=off ro=off
"read/write"
hs=off ro=off
"read/write"
hs=off ro=off
"read/write"
hs=off ro=off
"read/write”
```
Looks like I am too late to vote. Actually, if I had the chance, I would vote “rw/ro”.
And a question:
```
+						if (!hs || !ro)
+							strlcpy(buf, _("unknown"), sizeof(buf));
+						else if (strcmp(hs, "on") == 0 || strcmp(ro, "on") == 0)
+							strlcpy(buf, "read-only", sizeof(buf));
+						else
+							strlcpy(buf, "read/write", sizeof(buf));
```
Why wrap “unknown” in "_()” but not “read-only” and “read/write”?
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jakub Wartak | 2025-10-30 08:01:30 | Re: [PATCH] Add Windows support for backtrace_functions (MSVC only) | 
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-10-30 07:44:23 | Re: Sequence Access Methods, round two |