Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:45 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:
>
>> 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.
>

The person on the client side isn't thinking about what's going in the PG
server's logs.

This is something that *should* be fixed. Very low priority, after the
data corruption and feature bugs, and useful new features added, but either
return an error code if the client user doesn't have access to that
database, or remove the option.

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