Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I would rather see us implement the hypothetical pg_ping protocol > and remember to include the postmaster's PID in the response. One > of the worst misfeatures of pg_ctl is the need to be able to > authenticate itself to the postmaster, and having it rely on being > able to actually issue a SQL command would set that breakage in > stone. Sounds good to me, other than it stalls pg_ctl revamp until pg_ping is done. I don't remember a clear design of what pg_ping should look like. Does anyone have a clear plan in their head? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
