| 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 16:45:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaSepzY69Jod0wsPrh8Qmu_AdMoWaQ=kq3ifJWsuD+P3w@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:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:30 AM David G. Johnston <
> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That seems odd. Why mention an option in --help if the option isn't
> needed?
>
Because it exists - and I figure most people should use it to not put
spurious errors into the logs.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-11-24 16:52:58 | Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-11-24 16:38:59 | Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? |