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.
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.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
