From: | Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility |
Date: | 2012-10-16 01:47:02 |
Message-ID: | CADAkt-iaThuDEWkzpwwi87atchRC1pNjWoRY0rH0B3XZ1OA7Lw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> writes:
>> I would also like it to have a regression test
>> which none of those seem to have.
>
> [ shrug... ] There is nothing in the current regression infrastructure
> that would work for this, so that desire is pie-in-the-sky regardless of
> where you put it in the source tree. Also, PQping itself is exercised
> in every buildfarm run as part of "pg_ctl start", so I don't feel a real
> strong need to test pg_ping separately.
My plan was to borrow heavily from the pg_upgrade test. I want to
verify the exit status based on known database state as presumably
people would be using this for monitoring/load balancing, etc. Hoping
to prevent silly breakage like the help output from returning an
'Accepting Connections' exit status.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2012-10-16 01:49:01 | Re: Global Sequences |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-10-16 01:37:38 | Re: Global Sequences |