On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas > > Who is right is a judgement call, but I don't think it's self-evident > that > > users want to ignore anything and everything that might have gone wrong > > with the connection to the first server, rather than only those things > which > > resemble a down server. It seems quite possible to me that if we had > defined > > it as you are proposing, somebody would now be arguing for a behavior > change > > in the other direction. > > Judgment call... so, I understood that it's a matter of choosing between > helping to detect configuration errors early or service continuity. This is how I've been reading this thread and I'm tending to agree with prioritizing service continuity over configuration error detection. As a client if I have an alternative that ends up working I don't really care whose fault it is that the earlier options weren't. I don't have enough experience to think up plausible scenarios here but I'm sold on the theory. David J.
