| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 15:44:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20071219154412.GR11226@svr2.hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-12-19 15:49:48 | Re: Benchmark for GiST index? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-12-19 15:39:57 | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |