From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility |
Date: | 2012-11-26 15:41:10 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqR+sDGkiYEBnq1qEdQvp5yUw-xz1RChnUPq7Xe+i4G0tg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/23/12 9:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > We waited a couple of days for feedback for this feature. So based on
> > all the comments provided by everybody on this thread, perhaps we should
> > move on and implement the options that would make pg_ping a better
> > wrapper for PQPing. Comments?
>
> Personally, I still don't see the general utility of this. For
> monitoring, psql -c 'select 1' is much more useful. For network
> analysis, you can use network analysis tools. The niche for pg_ping in
> between those is so narrow that I cannot see it.
>
As a wrapper for PQPing, you can get different server status specific to
libpq which are PQPING_OK, PQPING_REJECT and PQPING_NO_RESPONSE, and
perhaps more in the future if PQPing is extended in a way or another. So
the purpose of this feature is to allow users to put there hands on a core
feature that would allow them to get a libpq-specific server status, and to
check the accessibility to the server with something lighter than a psql
client connection. Any additional comments Phil?
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-26 15:47:38 | Upcoming back-branch releases |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-11-26 15:26:27 | Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility |