On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> set_pglocale_pgservice() should be called? >> >> I think that the command name (i.e., pg_isready) should be given to >> PQpingParams() as fallback_application_name. Otherwise, the server >> by default uses "unknown" as the application name of pg_isready. >> It's undesirable. >> >> Why isn't the following message output only when invalid option is >> specified? >> >> Try \"%s --help\" for more information. > > I've updated the patch to address these three issues. Attached. > >> >> When the conninfo string including the hostname or port number is >> specified in -d option, pg_isready displays the wrong information >> as follows. >> >> $ pg_isready -d "port=9999" >> /tmp:5432 - no response >> > > This is what i asked about in my previous email about precedence of > the parameters. I can parse that with PQconninfoParse, but what are > the rules for merging both individual and conninfo params together?
If I read conninfo_array_parse() correctly, PQpingParams() prefer the option which is set to its keyword array later. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers