X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16F932B556;
	Sat,  2 Oct 2004 20:30:38 +0100 (BST)
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 45148-01; Sat,  2 Oct 2004 19:30:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from linuxworld.com.au (unknown [203.34.46.50])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767E132A882;
	Sat,  2 Oct 2004 14:35:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from localhost (swm@localhost)
	by linuxworld.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i92DY6h30236;
	Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:34:06 +1000
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:34:06 +1000 (EST)
From: Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>,
	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
In-Reply-To: <20040929202326.Q3407@ganymede.hub.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0410022333110.30224@linuxworld.com.au>
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
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200410/24
X-Sequence-Number: 5418

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, 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?  We haven't had a database issue in
> quite awhile that *I'm* aware of ... in fact, the whole web site is
> static, generated periodically from .php files, so that the mirrors can
> pick things up properly, so there should never be a 'cannot connect to
> database' issue, since there are no connections to the database being made

I know this isn't on the main site but:

http://www.alcove.com.au/~swm/gborg.png

Gavin