>>>>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:21:49 -0500, Phil Stracchino said: > > On 2019-12-03 10:04, Martin Simmons wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:15:53 +0100, Radosław Korzeniewski said: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> wt., 3 gru 2019 o 14:27 Martin Simmons <mar...@lispworks.com> napisał(a): > >> > >>> Is the current timing useful for some other situation? > >>> > >> > >> I do not understand your question. > > > > I'm trying to understand why it is implemented like it is. > > > > I hope we agree that jobs have a scheduled time and a start time. The start > > time can be much later than the scheduled time, for example if the job > > priority is specified and a job with a smaller priority is running. > > > > A copy job currently chooses the jobs to be copied at the scheduled time(A), > > but Phil and myself think that it should choose the jobs to be copied at the > > start time(B). Can you explain if (A) is ever better than (B) for the user? > > > Actually, the fact that the job in question is a copy job is, I think, > irrelevant here (unless only Copy jobs can use the SQL Query selection > type, which I do not think is the case). > > The most concise statement I can come up with of what I assert to be the > bug is as follows: > > "SQL query selections are incorrectly pre-evaluated when a job is > queued, instead of being evaluated on-time when it is executed."
I don't disagree, but it is also broken for the implicit queries used by the other values of Selection Type. __Martin _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
