Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > No, I think it is the reference docs on the returned value that must be
>> > fixed. That is, instead of saying that the return value correspond to
>> > the enum values, you should be saying that it will return
>> > <literal>0</literal> if it's okay, 1 in another case and 2 in yet
>> > another case. And then next to the PQping() enum, add a comment that
>> > the values must not be messed around with because pg_isready exposes
>> > them to users and shell scripts.
>>
>> +1 I'm on board with this.
>
> OK. Let's do that and then mark this patch as ready for committer.
> Thanks,

Those changes have been made.

>
> --
> Michael Paquier
> http://michael.otacoo.com

Something I was just thinking about while testing this again. I
mentioned the issue before about someone meaning to put -v and putting
-V instead and it being a potential source of problems. What about
making verbose the default and removing -v and adding -q to make it
quiet? This would also match other tools behavior. I want to get this
wrapped up and I am fine with it as is, but just wanted to ask what
others thought.

Thanks.