| From: | Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] dubious improvement in new psql |
| Date: | 2000-01-01 19:05:18 |
| Message-ID: | 386E4FEE.CA3E21C3@austin.rr.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Question for discussion: when the WAL postmaster is running a database
> start or restart, perhaps it should simply delay processing of new
> connection requests until the DB is ready, instead of rejecting them
> immediately? That would eliminate the need for retry loops in
> applications, and thereby avoid wasted retry processing on both sides.
> On the other hand, I can see where an unexpected multi-second delay to
> connect might be bad news, too. Comments?
Suggestion: Make the delay/reconnect optional with configurable
parameters for how many times to retry, how long to retry, etc.
I have an Apache mod-perl app already doing this reconnect logic, and I'm
very glad my app has control over those parameters.
Cheers,
Ed Loehr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ed Loehr | 2000-01-02 00:28:20 | pgsql y2k bug? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-01 18:48:36 | Re: [HACKERS] dubious improvement in new psql |