"J.P." <jp@neverwas.me> writes:

> I've attached a less sloppy version that probably still fails in some
> common cases, but at least it reuses the existing session connector.

I've improved upon this further (v3 attached) by adding a housekeeping
task to monitor the initial server process from creation. Such a move
may be regrettable because it adds yet more complexity to the already
dizzying auto-reconnect landscape. However, I couldn't find a suitable
way to cover common process errors that aren't presented to the sentinel
but still need to engage the reconnect logic.

If this leads to a futile game of whack-a-mole, we'll obviously need to
try a different approach. But if we do more-or-less build on what I've
got so far, we'll definitely need to ensure it agrees with 27 and 28
before spending serious energy on refinement and tests.

Thanks.