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-jRq6PZQ2JxqPEn=L3ktiGM9KD=VR8MGbxEb9MS3s28zA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + It's impossible for everything to be true. + > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: