Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>
>>We can also try to come up with a better scheme for verifying that we
>>have started properly - I will think about that.
>>
>>
>
>There have been previous suggestions for a "pg_ping" functionality, in
>which you could simply send a packet to the postmaster and it would
>answer back if it's open for business. You can approximate this by
>sending a deliberately invalid login packet, but it's not quite the same
>thing. I think there were some concerns about security though; check
>the archives.
>
>In any case, a C-code pg_ctl could eliminate most of the problems
>directly, simply because it wouldn't have to rely on psql.
>
>
>
Right. The remaining cases would be fairly much those where the
configuration is such that a connection is not possible. My feeling is
that if people tie themselves down that tightly then they should also
specify "no wait" with pg_ctl - it depends on how much we want to keep
backwards compatibility with this behaviour.
cheers
andrew
