"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for <n> >>> seconds or so. > >> I think looping forever is the right thing. Having a fixed timeout just means >> Postgres will break sometimes instead of all the time. And it introduces >> non-deterministic behaviour too. > > Looping forever would be considered broken by a very large fraction of > the community.
Really? I understood we're talking about having Postgres fail with an error if any of its files are opened by another program such as backup software. So with a 30s limit it means Postgres might or might not fail depending on how long this other software has the file open. That doesn't seem like an improvement. > > IIRC we have a 30-second timeout in rename() for Windows, and that seems > to be working well enough, so I'd be inclined to copy the behavior for > this case. I thought it was unlink, and the worst-case there is that we leak a file until some later time. I'm wasn't exactly following that case though. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
