From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] > Well, I started out believing that the current behavior was for the best, > and then completely reversed my position and favored the OP's proposal. > Nothing has really happened since then to change my mind, so I guess I'm > still in that camp. But do we have any new data points? Have any > beta-testers tested this and what do they think? > The only non-developer (i.e. person not living in an ivory tower) who has > weighed in here is Tels, who favored reversing the original decision and > adopting Tsunakawa-san's position, and that was 2 months ago. > > I am pretty reluctant to tinker with this at this late date and in the face > of several opposing votes, but I do think that we bet on the wrong horse.
Thank you Robert and Tels. Yes, Tels's comment sounds plausible as a representative real user who expects high availability. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but this feature is for HA, so libpq should attempt to connect to the next host when it fails to establish a connection. Who can conclude this? I don't think that no feedback from beta users means satisfaction with the current behavior. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers