Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
The real issue in my mind is why is "ln" unreliable in mingw? I cannot
see any point in a retry kluge when we do not know what's really going
on.
I'm still trying to find out. But I don't see why this is different from the kludge we already have for unlink, and that one is right inside postgresql.
It's different because we know why we need that one: we understand the cause of the behavior and we therefore can have some confidence that the kluge will fix it (or not, as the case may be). I have zero confidence in looping five times around an "ln" call.
Even if we don't do that can we *please* put in something that detects the error, and tells the user what they will have to do to fix it? Failing in a situation which we know we can detect and not telling the user is intolerable, IMNSHO.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
