Re: pgping?

On Saturday, December 13, 2025, Gunnar <tongji(at)netcologne(dot)de> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/13/25 15:54, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 12, 2025, Gunnar <tongji(at)netcologne(dot)de> wrote:
>
>>
>> my latest experience with pg_isready reminded me that it only works on a
>> general level (cluster ready generally) though.
>> If you include a database to the command it still reports true even if
>> the database you want to address does not exist.
>>
>> That said I remember that I read this was broken since ... forever, which
>> means nobody cares.
>>
>>
> It isn’t broken - it is working precisely as intended and required for the
> use cases it’s meant to solve. That’s why no one is fixing it. These
> people that want it to solve additional use cases need to step up and
> implement some new features for it.
>
>
> hm, one might argue, that if the use case 'pg_isready -d database' is
> mentioned in the manual this could be seen as the aspiration, or maybe even
> commitment to that feature.
> Even the description of pg_isready --help mentions a "connection check to
> a database", not a cluster.
>
> Do I misinterpret the manual/help? If that was the case my next question
> was ... what is the purpose of the option -d, --dbname=DBNAME ?
>

As I wrote in the other thread while rephrasing what the docs say: it
avoids an inconsequential error message in the server log since the backend
protocol requires any connection attempt to include those fields and
sometime the defaults aren’t correct.

David J,