On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: > Ok. I can add something to the notes section of the docs. I can also > add some code comments for this and for grabbing the default params.
Sounds good. >> Oh, I see. Is it really important to have the host and port in the >> output, or should we trim that down to just e.g. "accepting >> connections"? It seems useful to have that if a human is looking at >> the output, but maybe not if a machine is looking at the output. And >> if somebody doesn't want it, getting rid of it with sed or awk is >> nontrivial - imagine: >> >> pg_isready -d "/tmp:5432 - accepting connections" > > If you are scripting I'd assume you would use the return code value. > It might be reasonable to make adding the host and port the verbose > method and have just "accepting connections" as the default output, > but my concern there is a misdiagnosis because someone doesn't realize > what server they are connecting to. This way they can't miss it and > they don't have to add another command line option to get that output. It's a fair concern. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? > The other thing I thought about when you mentioned this is not doing > the default lookups if it's in quiet mode. I could move things around > to accomplish this, but not sure it is worth the effort and > complexity. Thoughts? That doesn't seem to buy us anything. I'm fine with the code, now that I see what it's intended to do. It doesn't cost anything noticeable in terms of efficiency; I think, I just didn't want to make things complicated without a reason. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
