Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>>> Phil Sorber escribió:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> OK, here is the patch that handles the connection string in dbname.
>>>>>> >> I'll post the other patch under a different posting because I am sure
>>>>>> >> it will get plenty of debate on it's own.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm sorry, can you remind me what this does for us vs. the existing coding?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's supposed to handle the connection string passed as dbname case to
>>>>>> be able to get the right output for host:port.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely the idea is that you can also give it a postgres:// URI, right?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Here is it. I like this approach more than the previous one, but I'd
>>> like some feedback.
>
> The patch looks complicated to me. I was thinking that we can address
> the problem
> just by using PQconninfoParse() and PQconndefaults() like uri-regress.c does.
> The patch should be very simple. Why do we need so complicated code?

Did you like the previous version better?

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADAkt-hnB3OhCpkR+PCg1c_Bjrsb7J__BPV+-jrjS5opjR2oww@mail.gmail.com

>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao