| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "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 15:20:23 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57902A84A4B@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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.
> 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)
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-19 15:33:17 | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-12-19 14:34:04 | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |