Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken)
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+YD5+kEoydYFH3Yi-MqU8+Vg3MDSi0KGMqjgzk0HGyHw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, soculicidae is *still* broken) (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)
Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, soculicidae is *still* broken) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:41:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Indeed, pgrename() does so with a 100ms sleep time between each >> iteration. Perhaps we could do that and limit to 50 iterations? > > pgrename() is polling for an asynchronous event, hence the sleep. To my > knowledge, time doesn't heal shm attach failures; therefore, a sleep is not > appropriate here. > Yes, I also share this opinion, the shm attach failures are due to randomization behavior, so sleep won't help much. So, I will change the patch to use 100 retries unless people have other opinions. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: