[HACKERS] Re: [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts whensome errors occur

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Noah Misch  wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:08:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
>>  wrote:
>> > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
>> >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
>> >> The problem is that if we decide to change the behavior mid-beta, then we'll
>> >> only have the rest of beta to find out whether people will like the other
>> >> behavior.
>> >>
>> >> I would aim for the behavior that is most suitable for refinement in the
>> >> future.  The current behavior seems to match that.
>> >
>> > I think the pre-final release period is the very timing for refinement, in the perspective of users and PG developers as users.
>>
>> Sure that is the correct period to argue.
>
> We've reached that period.  If anyone is going to push for a change here, now
> is the time.  Absent such arguments, the behavior won't change.

Well, I started out believing that the current behavior was for the
best, and then completely reversed my position and favored the OP's
proposal.  Nothing has really happened since then to change my mind,
so I guess I'm still in that camp.  But do we have any new data
points?  Have any beta-testers tested this and what do they think?
The only non-developer (i.e. person not living in an ivory tower) who
has weighed in here is Tels, who favored reversing the original
decision and adopting Tsunakawa-san's position, and that was 2 months
ago.

I am pretty reluctant to tinker with this at this late date and in the
face of several opposing votes, but I do think that we bet on the
wrong horse.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company