Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Date: 2025-11-24 16:30:41
Message-ID: CAKFQuwZyBkjLxYt5RpPVnbO_EMAyfYwp-XhSKeebRhyNFM9SVQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

On Monday, November 24, 2025, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> The "-d, --dbname=DBNAME" option is mentioned in --help output, but
> pg_isready ignores nonexistent databases.
>
> Is this an application bug, a minor doc bug or am I missing something?
>

It’s documented in the Notes section.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Johnson 2025-11-24 16:38:59 Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2025-11-24 16:27:57 Is the pg_isready database name relevant?