Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:55:33AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many of these are nonsensical -- we know this is not a device, nor
>>>> network access. Still there is more than one possibility, and I don't
>>>> know which ones should be really acceptable in this context or not.
>>>> (What's ERROR_FAIL_I24??) SHARING_VIOLATION seems the most likely
>>>> problem; an antivirus perhaps?
>>>>
>>> If you have an antivirus running on the system, you really should get rid
>>> of taht long before you start looking at the code...
>>>
>> FWIW I noticed by accident that the latest stable version of a
>> not-competing database system has fixed a related bug:
>>
>> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=9709
>> (yes, it only took them two and a half years to fix it).
>>
>> Note that their behavior on finding SHARING_VIOLATION or LOCK_VIOLATION
>> is to retry forever until the error goes away, on the theory that the
>> antivirus/backup software will soon release the file.
>>
>
> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for <n>
> seconds or so.
>
> So assuming we'd want to do that, how do we do it. If it's just the
> "open" operation that needs it, we can probably just stick the retry in
> the port file for that. But do we need to be able to retry on say
> read/write as well?
>
>
>
Let's start with open and see what happens - we're surely going to need
it there anyway. We already have a 30 second retry loop in unlink.
cheers
andrew