Yeah, Definitely it's not *expected* behavior so documentation is the good
starting point unless we fix the code soon. I don't agree with Tom's comment
on we should find out the reason for crash instead. In most of the cases,
reason for the crash is because someone restarted database and user trying
to get connection back.
my 2 cents!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> writes:
> > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:27:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> It's not just the port, it's all the connection parameters ---
> > >> do_connect relies on the PGconn object to remember those, and in this
> > >> case there no longer is a PGconn object.
> > >>
> > >> We could have psql keep that information separately, but I'm not sure
> > >> it's really worth the trouble.
> >
> > > well, I think it's definitely worth the trouble.
> >
> > [ shrug.. ] So submit a patch. Personally I don't think the case comes
> > up often enough to be worth the trouble, and I'd much rather spend
> > development time on preventing the server from crashing in the first
> > place.
>
> Should we document this somewhere?
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
>
--
Denish Patel,
OmniTi Computer Consulting Inc.
Database Administrator,
Phone: 443.325.1357 x 232