Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:55:33AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Many of these are nonsensical -- we know this is not a device, nor
>>> network access. Still there is more than one possibility, and I don't
>>> know which ones should be really acceptable in this context or not.
>>> (What's ERROR_FAIL_I24??) SHARING_VIOLATION seems the most likely
>>> problem; an antivirus perhaps?
>> If you have an antivirus running on the system, you really should get rid
>> of taht long before you start looking at the code...
>
> FWIW I noticed by accident that the latest stable version of a
> not-competing database system has fixed a related bug:
>
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=9709
> (yes, it only took them two and a half years to fix it).
>
> Note that their behavior on finding SHARING_VIOLATION or LOCK_VIOLATION
> is to retry forever until the error goes away, on the theory that the
> antivirus/backup software will soon release the file.
Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for <n>
seconds or so.
So assuming we'd want to do that, how do we do it. If it's just the
"open" operation that needs it, we can probably just stick the retry in
the port file for that. But do we need to be able to retry on say
read/write as well?
//Magnus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
