Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:31:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for <n> > > >> seconds or so. > > > > > I think looping forever is the right thing. Having a fixed timeout just > > > means > > > Postgres will break sometimes instead of all the time. And it introduces > > > non-deterministic behaviour too. > > > > Looping forever would be considered broken by a very large fraction of > > the community. > > > > IIRC we have a 30-second timeout in rename() for Windows, and that seems > > to be working well enough, so I'd be inclined to copy the behavior for > > this case. > > Here's a patch that I think implements this ;) Alvaro - do you have a build > env so you can test it? I can't reproduce the problem in my environment...
Thanks -- forwarded to the appropriate parties. :-) > Also, it currently just silently loops. Would it be interesting to > ereport(WARNING) that it's looping on the open, to let the user know > there's a problem? (Naturally, only warning the first time it tries it on > each file, so we don't spam the log too hard) Yeah, I think it would be useful to log one message if after (say) 5 seconds we still haven't been able to open the file. Is the sleep time correct? If I'm reading it right, it sleeps 100 ms each time, 30 times, that totals 3 seconds ... ? (Are we OK with the idea of sleeping 1 second each time?) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
