| From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_ctl reports succes when start fails |
| Date: | 2003-10-29 00:59:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20031029005945.GA87754@perrin.nxad.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> > We can also try to come up with a better scheme for verifying that
> > we have started properly - I will think about that.
>
> There have been previous suggestions for a "pg_ping" functionality,
> in which you could simply send a packet to the postmaster and it
> would answer back if it's open for business. You can approximate
> this by sending a deliberately invalid login packet, but it's not
> quite the same thing. I think there were some concerns about
> security though; check the archives.
Um, I wrote pg_ping and sent it to -patches but got no comments.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-07/msg00053.php
pg_ping is actually the basis for the threaded benchmark program I've
got sitting in my tree, but I don't think folks here would look kindly
on a -lpthread dependency given how up in the air pg's thread
support/testing is at the moment. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-10-29 01:13:27 | Re: Call for port reports |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-29 00:39:54 | Re: Call for port reports |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-29 03:36:00 | Re: pg_ctl reports succes when start fails |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-10-28 11:38:53 | Re: Defaults for GUC variables (was Re: pg_ctl reports succes when start fails) |