Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Ron Johnson
Subject Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Date
Msg-id CANzqJaCSbqU3QUqMhfv5ivYww=JQNwyYnKWnEJoO_onCiCrhSg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
List pgsql-admin
Tree view
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?

--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Is the pg_isready database name relevant?