Re: -d option for pg_isready is broken

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> More generally, if we do go over in 9.4 to the position that PQhost
>> reports the host parameter and nothing but, I'm not sure that introducing
>> a third behavior into the back branches is something that anybody will
>> thank us for.

> It doesn't seem very plausible to say that we're just going to
> redefine it that way, unless we're planning to bump the soversion.

Well, we didn't bump the soversion (nor touch the documentation)
in commit f6a756e4, which is basically what I'm suggesting we ought
to revert. It was nothing but a quick hack at the time, and hindsight
is saying it was a bad idea. Admittedly, it was long enough ago that
there might be some grandfather status attached to the current behavior;
but that argument can't be made for changing its behavior still further.

> But maybe we should decide what we *are* going to do in master first,
> before deciding what to back-patch.

Right.

regards, tom lane