Re: 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: Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Date: 2025-11-24 16:38:59
Message-ID: CANzqJaCSbqU3QUqMhfv5ivYww=JQNwyYnKWnEJoO_onCiCrhSg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

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?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2025-11-24 16:45:53 Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2025-11-24 16:30:41 Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?