On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:20:23PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Either that, or on the first run. > > Imho 1-5s is better, so that would be after the 10-50th try.
Ok, so I'll put in a warning after 50 tries. > > loop. It's supposed to loop 300 times. > > Yes. > > > > (Are we OK with the idea of sleeping 1 second each time?) > > > > I think not. 0.1 seconds is better. We don't want to delay a full > second if > > it's just a transient thing. > > Yes 0.1 s is imho good. Btw. m$ is talking about milliseconds > (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316609) Their sample code sleeps for 0.25 seconds though. (Sleep() takes milliseconds). So we're definitely fine with 0.1sec I think. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
