Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL
Date
Msg-id 20071219153317.GF9937@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL  ("Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:

> > I think not. 0.1 seconds is better. We don't want to delay a full
> > second if it's just a transient thing.
> 
> Yes 0.1 s is imho good. Btw. m$ is talking about milliseconds
> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316609) 

Hm, the article only mentions ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION but we're also
considering ERROR_LOCKING_VIOLATION.  Should we retry only on the
SHARING violation?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD"
Date:
Subject: Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL