Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130123195101.GG23670@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) (Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:50:01PM -0500, Phil Sorber wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> writes: > >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com > >> >> <grows old, dies> > >> > >> > Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if > >> > specified at the command line? > >> > >> +1 for default timeout --- if this isn't like "ping" where you are > >> expecting to run indefinitely, I can't see that it's a good idea for it > >> to sit very long by default, in any circumstance. > > > > FYI, the pg_ctl -w (wait) default is 60 seconds: > > > > from pg_ctl.c: > > > > #define DEFAULT_WAIT 60 > > > > Great. That is what I came to on my own as well. Figured that might be > a sticking point, but as there is precedent, I'm happy with it. Yeah, being able to point to precedent is always helpful. -- 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: