| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |
| Date: | 2007-12-19 15:33:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20071219153317.GF9937@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > 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)
Hm, the article only mentions ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION but we're also
considering ERROR_LOCKING_VIOLATION. Should we retry only on the
SHARING violation?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-12-19 15:39:57 | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2007-12-19 15:20:23 | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |