Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> set_pglocale_pgservice() should be called?
>
> I think that the command name (i.e., pg_isready) should be given to
> PQpingParams() as fallback_application_name. Otherwise, the server
> by default uses "unknown" as the application name of pg_isready.
> It's undesirable.
>
> Why isn't the following message output only when invalid option is
> specified?
>
> Try \"%s --help\" for more information.

I've updated the patch to address these three issues. Attached.

>
> When the conninfo string including the hostname or port number is
> specified in -d option, pg_isready displays the wrong information
> as follows.
>
> $ pg_isready -d "port=9999"
> /tmp:5432 - no response
>

This is what i asked about in my previous email about precedence of
the parameters. I can parse that with PQconninfoParse, but what are
the rules for merging both individual and conninfo params together?

For example if someone did: pg_isready -h foo -d "host=bar port=4321" -p 1234

What should the connection parameters be?

> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao