On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.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? > > If I read conninfo_array_parse() correctly, PQpingParams() prefer the > option which is set to its keyword array later.
It would be really nice to expose conninfo_array_parse() or some wrapped version directly to a libpq consumer. Otherwise, I need to recreate this behavior in pg_isready.c. Thoughts on adding: PQconninfoOption *PQparamsParse(const char **keywords, const char **values, char **errmsg, bool use_defaults, int expand_dbname) or similar? Or perhaps there is a better way to accomplish this that I am not aware of? > > Regards, > > -- > Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers