Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing as stopped when in fact it is running
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing as stopped when in fact it is running |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201011271610.oARGARs10224@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing as stopped when in fact it is running (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> PQping is supposed to be smarter about classifying errors > >> than this. > > > I was not aware this was discussed last week because I am behind on > > email. I was fixing a report from a month ago. I did explain how I was > > doing the tests. > > Um, you did respond in that thread, several times even: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01102.php > so I kind of assumed that the patch you presented this week did > what was agreed to last week. Yes, I do remember that, but I remember this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01095.php What we want here is to check the result of postmaster.c'scanAcceptConnections(), and this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01106.php You do have to distinguish connection failures (ie connection refused)from errors that came back from the postmaster, andthe easiest place tobe doing that is inside libpq. which I thought meant it had to be done in libpq and we didn't have access to the postmaster return codes in libpq. Your changes look very good, and not something I would have been able to code. > I have committed a patch to make PQping do what was agreed to. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: