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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
Date
Msg-id 20130123185824.GB23670@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com
> >> <grows old, dies>
> 
> > Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if
> > specified at the command line?
> 
> +1 for default timeout --- if this isn't like "ping" where you are
> expecting to run indefinitely, I can't see that it's a good idea for it
> to sit very long by default, in any circumstance.

FYI, the pg_ctl -w (wait) default is 60 seconds:
from pg_ctl.c:
#define DEFAULT_WAIT    60

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ctl idempotent option
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ctl idempotent option