| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | grasshacker(at)over-yonder(dot)net, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug? 'psql -l' in pg_ctl? |
| Date: | 2000-11-29 06:15:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20001129151546S.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Probably we really need here is a kind of ping tool for PostgreSQL,
> > instead of using psql.
>
> > You could directory invoke postmaster but problem is there is no
> > reliable way to detect if PostgreSQL up and running other than
> > trying to make an actual communication with backend...
>
> I thought about watching for the postmaster.pid file to appear,
> but that happens before the system is really up and running
> --- the startup process isn't finished, and could still fail.
> (Writing the pidfile later doesn't seem like a good answer to that,
> since that'd weaken its main purpose of interlocking against
> multiple postmaster startups.)
>
> Trying to connect does seem to be the most reliable way to verify
> that the postmaster is open for business.
>
> (BTW, a short-term answer for grasshacker is not to use -w in his
> pg_ctl start script ...)
Agreed.
Do you think it's a good idea to invent a new command such as
"pg_ping" or should we add a new option to psql instead?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-29 06:34:20 | Re: Bug? 'psql -l' in pg_ctl? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-29 05:17:26 | Re: primary key |