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.


>  Then,
> you can make further changes to master in a subsequent commit.

Yeah, I will implement that patch.


Fujii Masao

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to