| From: | "Robert D(dot) Nelson" <RDNELSON(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | grasshacker <grasshacker(at)over-yonder(dot)net>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | RE: Bug? 'psql -l' in pg_ctl? |
| Date: | 2000-11-30 13:56:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3A22B655@rba6.rbapro.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>I fixed that today; if the database status is not open-for-business,
>the postmaster will tell you so right away instead of making you go
>through the authentication protocol first. So a pg_ping could be
>written that just sends a connection request packet and sees what
>comes back.
>
>However, if we're running in TRUST or IDENT mode, it's possible that
>that technique will lead to launching a backend to no purpose. So
>maybe we ought to extend the postmaster protocol to have a "query
>status" packet type. Thoughts?
Would it be too much to just simply inclue an expect wrapper? You could even
have it put in enough wrong auth answers so that the backend closes if you
wanted.
Rob Nelson
rdnelson(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Barnett | 2000-11-30 14:34:57 | RE: Database cluster? |
| Previous Message | Alex Bolenok | 2000-11-30 13:22:20 | OVERLAPS |