Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqSq+sebMNXGD+xBXUvbwrbmv-7mKqSdFgwpH9JuWuaV2Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility  (Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>)
Responses Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> No, I think it is the reference docs on the returned value that must be
> fixed.  That is, instead of saying that the return value correspond to
> the enum values, you should be saying that it will return
> <literal>0</literal> if it's okay, 1 in another case and 2 in yet
> another case.  And then next to the PQping() enum, add a comment that
> the values must not be messed around with because pg_isready exposes
> them to users and shell scripts.

+1 I'm on board with this.
OK. Let's do that and then mark this patch as ready for committer.
Thanks,
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes