Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant? - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwaSepzY69Jod0wsPrh8Qmu_AdMoWaQ=kq3ifJWsuD+P3w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?  (Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
List pgsql-admin
Tree view
On Monday, November 24, 2025, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:30 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2025, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
The "-d, --dbname=DBNAME" option is mentioned in --help output, but pg_isready ignores nonexistent databases.

Is this an application bug, a minor doc bug or am I missing something?

It’s documented in the Notes section.

That seems odd.  Why mention an option in --help if the option isn't needed?

Because it exists - and I figure most people should use it to not put spurious errors into the logs.

David J.
 

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Ron Johnson
Date:
Subject: Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Next
From: Ron Johnson
Date:
Subject: Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?