On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 05:50:45PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > I guessed that the reason Noah suggested 1 - 5 seconds of retry is based
> > on the expectation that the address space might be freed by the anti-virus
> > software.
No, I suggested it because I wouldn't seriously consider keeping an
installation where backend start takes 5s. If the address conflicts are that
persistent, I'd fix the bug or switch operating systems. Therefore, we may as
well let it fail at that duration, thereby showing the user what to
investigate. Startup time of 0.2s, on the other hand, is noticeable but
usable; I'd prefer not to fail hard at that duration.
> Noah is also suggesting to have a retry count, read his mail above in
> this thread and refer to his comment ("Thus, measuring time is
> needless complexity; retry count is a suitable proxy.")
Right.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
