Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I would rather see us implement the hypothetical pg_ping protocol
> and remember to include the postmaster's PID in the response. One
> of the worst misfeatures of pg_ctl is the need to be able to
> authenticate itself to the postmaster, and having it rely on being
> able to actually issue a SQL command would set that breakage in
> stone.
Sounds good to me, other than it stalls pg_ctl revamp until pg_ping is
done. I don't remember a clear design of what pg_ping should look
like. Does anyone have a clear plan in their head?
-Kevin
