Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:31:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > > "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.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.
>
> Here's a patch that I think implements this ;) Alvaro - do you have a build
> env so you can test it? I can't reproduce the problem in my environment...
Thanks -- forwarded to the appropriate parties. :-)
> Also, it currently just silently loops. Would it be interesting to
> ereport(WARNING) that it's looping on the open, to let the user know
> there's a problem? (Naturally, only warning the first time it tries it on
> each file, so we don't spam the log too hard)
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.
Is the sleep time correct? If I'm reading it right, it sleeps 100 ms
each time, 30 times, that totals 3 seconds ... ?
(Are we OK with the idea of sleeping 1 second each time?)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support