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

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> set_pglocale_pgservice() should be called?
>>>>
>>>> I think that the command name (i.e., pg_isready) should be given to
>>>> PQpingParams() as fallback_application_name. Otherwise, the server
>>>> by default uses "unknown" as the application name of pg_isready.
>>>> It's undesirable.
>>>>
>>>> Why isn't the following message output only when invalid option is
>>>> specified?
>>>>
>>>>     Try \"%s --help\" for more information.
>>>
>>> I've updated the patch to address these three issues. Attached.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the conninfo string including the hostname or port number is
>>>> specified in -d option, pg_isready displays the wrong information
>>>> as follows.
>>>>
>>>>     $ pg_isready -d "port=9999"
>>>>     /tmp:5432 - no response
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is what i asked about in my previous email about precedence of
>>> the parameters. I can parse that with PQconninfoParse, but what are
>>> the rules for merging both individual and conninfo params together?
>>
>> If I read conninfo_array_parse() correctly, PQpingParams() prefer the
>> option which is set to its keyword array later.
>
> It would be really nice to expose conninfo_array_parse() or some
> wrapped version directly to a libpq consumer. Otherwise, I need to
> recreate this behavior in pg_isready.c.
>
> Thoughts on adding:
>   PQconninfoOption *PQparamsParse(const char **keywords, const char
> **values, char **errmsg, bool use_defaults, int expand_dbname)
> or similar?
>
> Or perhaps there is a better way to accomplish this that I am not aware of?
>

It would also be nice to be able to pass user_defaults to PQconninfoParse().

>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Fujii Masao