X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D649252834 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:59:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31065-05 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:59:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C4A52820 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:59:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j66GxlUR028110; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:59:48 -0400 (EDT) To: jtv@xs4all.nl Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: libpq and connection failures 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> Comments: In-reply-to jtv@xs4all.nl message dated "Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:39:12 +0200" Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 12:59:47 -0400 Message-ID: <28109.1120669187@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/11 X-Sequence-Number: 5647 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