Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: startup failure patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jason Tishler <jason(at)tishler(dot)net>
Cc: Pgsql-Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: startup failure patch
Date: 2002-01-03 16:47:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
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 MomjianDate: 2002-01-03 17:21:11
Subject: Re: Updated TODO item
Previous:From: Jason TishlerDate: 2002-01-03 16:42:15
Subject: Re: startup failure patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group