On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Michael Paquier > >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > 3) Having an output close to what ping actually does would also be > nice, > >> > the > >> > current output like Accepting/Rejecting Connections are not that > >> > >> Could you be more specific? Are you saying you don't want to see > >> accepting/rejecting info output? > > > > OK sorry. > > > > I meant something like that for an accessible server: > > $ pg_ping -c 3 -h server.com > > PING server.com (192.168.1.3) > > accept from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=0 time=0.241 ms > > accept from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=0 time=0.240 ms > > accept from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=0 time=0.242 ms > > > > Like that for a rejected connection: > > reject from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=0 time=0.241 ms > > > > Like that for a timeout: > > timeout from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=0 > > Then print 1 line for each ping taken to stdout. > > How does icmp_seq fit into this? Or was that an oversight? > Yes, sorry it doesn't fit in this model. Please forget about it. > Also, in standard ping if you don't pass -c it will continue to loop > until interrupted. Would you suggest that pg_ping mimic that, or that > we add an additional flag for that behavior? > By targeting pg_ping as a clone of ping, yes it would mean that we target it to loop indefinitely if no c flags is given. > FWIW, I would use 'watch' with the existing output for cases that I > would need something like that. > watch allows you to launch a program given a certain time period. I am not sure this is related with pinging a server. When pinging a server, what you are looking for is not only the connectivity to it but also the latency you have with it, no? -- Michael Paquier http://michael.otacoo.com