| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gunnar <tongji(at)netcologne(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgping? |
| Date: | 2025-12-13 14:54:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbr_uyCZSdtF0huf+5FM2CBXWmZGkjLOu1721Wejj6BRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
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.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-12-13 15:59:35 | Re: pgping? |
| Previous Message | Gunnar | 2025-12-12 16:41:24 | Re: pgping? |