From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: jtv@xs4all.nl
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: libpq and connection failures
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 12:59:47 -0400
Message-ID: <28109.1120669187@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24362.202.47.227.25.1120635552.squirrel@202.47.227.25>
References: <21028.202.47.227.25.1120571298.squirrel@202.47.227.25>
<13032.1120574589@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<24362.202.47.227.25.1120635552.squirrel@202.47.227.25>
jtv@xs4all.nl writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it's probably better to have the default assumption be
>> "connection possibly recoverable" than have it be "summarily kill
>> connection at first hint of trouble". The latter seems less robust
>> not more so.
> Not after the connection failure has made its way into a PGresult, surely?
Well, I've not had a whole lot of personal experience with flaky
connections to a database ... what do other people think would be
the most useful behavior?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jtv@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: libpq and connection failures
In-Reply-To: <28109.1120669187@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox