Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Yeah, I know a whole new executable is kind of a pain, and the amount of >> infrastructure and added maintenance seems a bit high compared to what >> this does. But a lot of the programs in src/bin/scripts are not much >> bigger. (In fact that might be the best place for this.)
> I considered src/bin/scripts but all those are for maintenance tasks > on the DB. createdb/vacuumdb/reindexdb etc. It doesn't need any of the > bits in common.h/common.c, nor does it need some of the includes that > the build process has. Well, we classify all those programs as client-side tools in the documentation, so I don't see that pg_ping doesn't belong there. The alternative is to give it its very own subdirectory under src/bin/; which increases the infrastructure burden *significantly* (eg, now it needs its own NLS message catalog) for not a lot of value IMO. > I would also like it to have a regression test > which none of those seem to have. [ shrug... ] There is nothing in the current regression infrastructure that would work for this, so that desire is pie-in-the-sky regardless of where you put it in the source tree. Also, PQping itself is exercised in every buildfarm run as part of "pg_ctl start", so I don't feel a real strong need to test pg_ping separately. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers