At Fri, 23 Oct 2020 17:12:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> > At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:23:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> >> ... The only real objection I can see is that it could
> >> hold a server connection open when the user thinks there is none;
> >> but that could onl
Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:23:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
>> ... The only real objection I can see is that it could
>> hold a server connection open when the user thinks there is none;
>> but that could only happen in a non-interactive script, and it does
>> not seem like
At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:23:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> I wrote:
> > I did actually look into saving the active connection's PQconninfo
> > immediately at connection establishment and then referring to it in any
> > subsequent \connect. Then things could work the same even if the original
> > co
I wrote:
> I did actually look into saving the active connection's PQconninfo
> immediately at connection establishment and then referring to it in any
> subsequent \connect. Then things could work the same even if the original
> connection had failed meanwhile. But there are technical details th
At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:34:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> > At Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:59:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> > But once it got on my mind, it might be strange that just \c or \c
> > -reuse-previous=y doesn't reconnect a broken session. It might be
> > better we
Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> At Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:59:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
>> ... What I propose
>> is to complain if we have no o_conn *and* we are asked to re-use
>> parameters from it. Otherwise, it's fine.
> The reason I haven't complain about this is I don't reconnect by \c
> afte
At Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:59:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> While working on commit 85c54287a, I noticed a few things I did not
> much care for in do_connect(). These don't quite seem to rise to
> the level of back-patchable bugs, but they're still not great:
>
> * The initial stanza that complains
On 10/21/20 18:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the reason we've not had complaints about this is that the
> situation normally doesn't arise in interactive sessions (since we
> won't release the old connection voluntarily), while scripts are
> likely not designed to cope with connection losses anywa
