| From: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Designing a better connection pool for psycopg3 |
| Date: | 2021-01-18 15:12:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+mi_8aMCUW873qcN1vghtMQEXX78vSLj5+LtO5dQyy_2rbbeg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 15:39, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:29 PM Daniele Varrazzo
> <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to imagine what happens in a case such as a network
> > partition or reconfiguration, and the app server doesn't see the
> > database anymore. This node is arguably broken.
>
> Only if this is the *only* thing it does.
>
> It might still be able to reach other services on other nodes. Other
> databases. Heck, even other database son the same node if it was a
> config error.
In your opinion (and Karsten's, if he'd like to chip in), what should
happen on program start? Is attempting to create a new connection in
the main thread, and throwing an exception if failing to do so, a
reasonable behaviour?
Cheers,
-- Daniele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2021-01-18 15:19:49 | Re: Designing a better connection pool for psycopg3 |
| Previous Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2021-01-18 14:44:15 | Re: Designing a better connection pool for psycopg3 |