
> > Personally I don't think that any rename()-usleep loop is necessary.
> > I'll check the archives.
> 
> I agree the rename loop seems unnecessary.  I kept it in case we hadn't
> dealt with all the failure places.  Should we remove them now or wait
> for 8.1?  Seems we should keep them in and see if we get reports from
> users of looping forever, and if not we can remove them in 8.1.

What I do not understand is, that Windows has rename and _unlink.
Are we using those or not?

Looping forever is certainly not good, but I thought the current code
had a limited loop. I think a limited loop is required, since both
rename and _unlink can not cope with a locked file.

Andreas

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:04:35 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: APR 1.0 released
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> 
> > > Personally I don't think that any rename()-usleep loop is necessary.
> > > I'll check the archives.
> > 
> > I agree the rename loop seems unnecessary.  I kept it in case we hadn't
> > dealt with all the failure places.  Should we remove them now or wait
> > for 8.1?  Seems we should keep them in and see if we get reports from
> > users of looping forever, and if not we can remove them in 8.1.
> 
> What I do not understand is, that Windows has rename and _unlink.
> Are we using those or not?
> 
> Looping forever is certainly not good, but I thought the current code
> had a limited loop. I think a limited loop is required, since both
> rename and _unlink can not cope with a locked file.

The current code prints a log message after 30 tries but keeps trying.
We don't use the native ones because they don't work on open files
properly.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:23:52 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: APR 1.0 released