Is the pg_isready database name relevant?

From: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Date: 2025-11-24 16:27:57
Message-ID: CANzqJaAob4BFkhc2-w_vJrm-8KgELNnmqJJhc4oNDuY-O9+Azg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

The "-d, --dbname=DBNAME" option is mentioned in --help output, but
pg_isready ignores nonexistent databases.

$ psql -V
psql (PostgreSQL) 17.6
$ pg_isready -d blarge -h BBOSLBXPGS402
BBOSLBXPGS402:5432 - accepting connections

Is this an application bug, a minor doc bug or am I missing something?

--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2025-11-24 16:30:41 Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2025-11-24 15:26:33 Re: rebuild big tables with pgrepack