| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about reliability? |
| Date: | 2000-11-09 16:47:43 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20001109084743.01696290@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 10:43 AM 11/9/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would there be any potential to avoid these (possibly) unnecessary deaths?
>
>No, at least it'll never get my vote.
Besides, it's not that difficult for an application to recover from these
prophylactic backend deaths. My PG driver for AOLserver does so
transparently,
retrying queries that get the "sorry I've been asked to shut down because some
other backend screwed up and died - please retry your query" but returning an
error for the actual query that caused a backend to hose itself.
The code using the driver is unaware that anything has happened (other than
the thread issuing the query that hosed the backend that died in execution, of
course).
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pete Forman | 2000-11-09 16:51:44 | Re: problems with configure |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-11-09 16:34:49 | Schemas (Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1) |