Jason Tishler <jason(at)tishler(dot)net> writes:
>> Why would it take more than 3 seconds to start the postmaster under
>> Cygwin? Something awfully fishy about that, unless you're using
>> a 286 ...
> I never had this problem before on my home server machine (PIII 500 MHz)
> with previous PostgreSQL versions. However, on my work laptop (also
> PIII 500 MHz, but virus software, slow disk, etc.), PostgreSQL CVS just
> needs more time to start up.
Hm. That deserves investigation, but it seems not high priority
compared to getting a release out.
>> I didn't much care for the arbitrary delay in the first place, and
>> raising it to 10 sec is even less palatable.
> Agreed on both accounts -- I detest open loop solutions myself.
> I was going to suggest the retry strategy, but I wasn't sure that such a
> patch would be accepted at this time. How should I proceed?
Code up a patch, test it, send in a diff ... I think the only real risk
here is to be careful not to write anything unportable. I believe that
"until" loops exist even in very old Bourne shells, does anyone think
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-01-03 17:21:11|
|Subject: Re: Updated TODO item|
|Previous:||From: Jason Tishler||Date: 2002-01-03 16:42:15|
|Subject: Re: pg_regress.sh startup failure patch|