On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Not that I can see, but it's not very future-proof. If libpq changes >>> its idea of what will provoke database-name expansion, this will again >>> be broken. >> >> Yeah, I agree that we should make the logic of pg_isready more future-proof >> in 9.4dev. One idea is to expose internal_ping() as a libpq function. Then, >> instead of just calling PQpingParams(), we can do PQconnectStartParams(), >> libpq-function-version-of-internal_ping(), PQhost(), PQport(), and >> PQfinish(). >> That is, we get to know the host and port information by calling >> PQhost() and PQport(), >> after trying to connect to the server. > > Hmm, that sounds like a possibly promising approach. > >> But we cannot use this idea in 9.3 because it's too late to add new >> libpq function there. >> Also I don't think that the minor version release would change that >> libpq's logic in 9.3. >> So, barring any objections, I will commit the latest version of the >> patch in 9.3. > > I think you should commit it to both master and REL9_3_STABLE.
Committed. > Then, > you can make further changes to master in a subsequent commit. Yeah, I will implement that patch. 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
