Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:29 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org,
	Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Server unreliability
Message-ID: <20040930132629.GC4783@dcc.uchile.cl>
References: <200409291713.i8THDLn14086@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<200409291152.05741.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<20040929155958.U93533@ganymede.hub.org>
	<20040929201556.GB5275@dcc.uchile.cl>
	<20040929202326.Q3407@ganymede.hub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040929202326.Q3407@ganymede.hub.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 08:24:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 
> >about pg_query not getting a good connection or similar problems. 
> >Isn't normal advice to check return codes before even trying to use the 
> >connections?  Why isn't this done in the main postgresql.org code, where 
> >anyone can see it, is beyond me.  Of course the solution to the 
> >underlying problem is to restart the Postgres server, but why should we 
> >inform the user that Postgres' own database server is down, in the worst 
> >possible way?
> 
> Just curious here, but when/where?

I don't remember an exact date or place, just that I've seen that happen
more than three times and I've always thought it was bad programming
practice.  It has been very annoying, mainly because it means casual
visitors could see those and possible think Postgres reliability sucked.
Perhaps it has been fixed since then.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"The important things in the world are problems with society that we don't
understand at all. The machines will become more complicated but they won't
be more complicated than the societies that run them."    (Freeman Dyson)