Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

From: "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Date: 2015-09-04 04:08:03
Message-ID: CACACo5QGkbprn-Ch8eNBkxrWYsqB_27dv6F8C5f592sgMnDPEw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

On Sep 3, 2015 7:30 PM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> All of these objections seem pretty thin to me. I'd accept any of
> them as a reason for preferring one alternative over another, but I
> don't accept that the presence of a few problems of this magnitude
> means we should give up on the feature. It's a good enough feature
> that it is worth the possibility of slightly inconveniencing someone
> running in an unusual configuration.

I give up.

Though I still don't see any compelling reason for this to be in libpq
itself. By the way, what about mixing conninfo and uris - should this not
be allowed?

-
Alex

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-09-04 04:11:37 Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals
Previous Message Amit Langote 2015-09-04 04:05:48 Re: BRIN INDEX value

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2015-09-04 23:43:03 Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-09-03 17:30:43 Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level.