| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: windows shared memory error |
| Date: | 2009-05-04 16:42:20 |
| Message-ID: | 2098.1241455340@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I still think there's absolutely no evidence suggesting that a variable
>> backoff is necessary. Given how little this code is going to be
>> exercised in the real world, how long will it take till we find out
>> if you get it wrong? Use a simple retry loop and be done with it.
> +1. Let's keep it as simple as possible for now. I doubt it's actually
> dependent on the *failed* call.
Exactly. Presumably we're waiting for some system bookkeeping to
finish. Maybe it will take more than 1 second, but we're not going
to be slowing it noticeably by trying once a second.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) | 2009-05-04 17:13:06 | Synchronous replication: replication_timeout parameter |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-04 16:40:59 | Re: windows shared memory error |