Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > It strikes me that we really need to try reconnecting to the shared > memory here several times, and maybe the backoff need to increase each > time.
Adding a backoff would make the code significantly more complex, with no gain that I can see. Just loop a few times around the one-second-sleep-and-retry logic. I concur with Greg's opinion that the need for a sleep here at all is pretty fishy, but I doubt anyone really cares enough to find out exactly what's happening (and it being Windows, there may be no better solution anyway ...) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers