Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> The actual 1 second value was completely random - it fixed all the >>> issues on my test VM at the time. I don't recall exactly the details, >>> but I do recall having to run a lot of tests before I managed to provoke >>> an error, and that with the 1 sec thing i could run it for a day of >>> repeated restarts without any errors. > >> Well, my untested hypothesis is that the actual time required is >> variable, depending on environmental factors such as machine load. > > Seems reasonable. > >> So testing repeatedly where such factors are constant might not be good >> enough. That's why I suggested some sort of increasing backoff, in an >> attempt to be adaptive. > > I still think there's absolutely no evidence suggesting that a variable > backoff is necessary. Given how little this code is going to be > exercised in the real world, how long will it take till we find out > if you get it wrong? Use a simple retry loop and be done with it.
+1. Let's keep it as simple as possible for now. I doubt it's actually dependent on the *failed* call. Andrew, you want to write up a patch or do you want me to do it? //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers