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

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?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao