| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |
| Date: | 2007-12-16 03:31:38 |
| Message-ID: | 18938.1197775898@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-12-16 03:55:51 | Re: stored procedures to webservices |
| Previous Message | ivo nascimento | 2007-12-16 02:49:59 | stored procedures to webservices |