Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
От | Phil Sorber |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADAkt-h6qpgxYr=fJ7Mu-oVnRV=taxfRc3+NKaV2rZ4Q1RTw1A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote: >> Changing up the subject line because this is no longer a work in >> progress nor is it pg_ping anymore. > > OK, I committed this. However, I have one suggestion. Maybe it would > be a good idea to add a -c or -t option that sets the connect_timeout > parameter. Because: > > [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com > <grows old, dies> Oh, hrmm. Yes, I will address that with a follow up patch. I guess in my testing I was using a host that responded properly with port unreachable or TCP RST or something. Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if specified at the command line? > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: