Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Phil Sorber
Subject Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
Date
Msg-id CADAkt-hUizLV8U1n1dZHuz5O6OXRZHC+Nzkrxy3PPbuDNsDynw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)  (Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No maybe. But I think that all the client commands should follow the
>> same rule. Otherwise a user would get confused when specifying
>> options.
>
> I would consider the rest of the apps using it as a consensus. I will
> make sure it aligns in behavior.
>

I've done as you suggested, and made sure they align with other
command line utils. What I have found is that dbname is passed
(almost) last in the param array so that it clobbers all previous
values. I have made this patch as minimal as possible basing it off of
master and not off of my previous attempt. For the record I still like
the overall design of my previous attempt better, but I have not
included a new version based on that here so as not to confuse the
issue, however I would gladly do so upon request.

Updated patch attached.

>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Fujii Masao

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #7493: Postmaster messages unreadable in a Windows console
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: backup.sgml patch that adds information on custom format backups