Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] dubious improvement in new psql

From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] dubious improvement in new psql
Date: 1999-12-28 22:14:17
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.02A.9912282309160.12951-100000@Hamster.DoCS.UU.SE (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 25 Dec 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> The new psql automatically tries to reconnect if the backend disconnects
> unexpectedly.  This feature strikes me as ill-conceived; furthermore
> it appears to be buggy.
> It's ill-conceived because:
> (1) under WAL, following a backend crash the postmaster is going to be
> spending a few seconds reinitializing; an immediate reconnect attempt
> is almost guaranteed to fail.

Good point.

> (2) if I'm running an SQL script, I think it's extremely foolhardy
> to press on with executing the script as though nothing had happened.
> A backend crash is not an event to be lightly ignored.

It only does the reconnect thing if it's used interactively.

I suppose leaving psql in an unconnected state (which does exist) would be
a better solution. I'll investigate the behaviour you observed below after
I get back from my vacation.

> It's buggy because: it doesn't work reliably.  While poking at the
> backend's problems with oversize btree index entries, I saw psql claim
> it had successfully reconnected, and then go into a catatonic state.
> It wouldn't give me a new command prompt (not even with ^C), wouldn't
> exit with ^D, and had to be killed from another shell window.
> This behavior doesn't seem to happen for every crash, but I'm not
> really interested in trying to debug it.  I think the "feature"
> ought to be ripped out.
> 			regards, tom lane
> ************

Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net                   75262 Uppsala            Sweden

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 1999-12-28 23:35:44
Subject: Re: [BUGS] INET operators and NOT
Previous:From: Tomas CerhaDate: 1999-12-28 20:14:46
Subject: INET operators and NOT

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group