From ae9641cfae8f9b4535624599c3887c1232c3406e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Berezansky Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 14:13:17 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Nearest Hold: Look at 100 instead of 10 holds At the suggestion of Mike Rylander. Because DB-wise the extra 90 IDs isn't a big deal, and this way we get more chances to capture (or block renewal, etc). Jeff Godin claims they have done this and it has produced no issues for them. Signed-off-by: Thomas Berezansky Signed-off-by: Mike Rylander --- Open-ILS/src/perlmods/lib/OpenILS/Application/Circ/Holds.pm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Open-ILS/src/perlmods/lib/OpenILS/Application/Circ/Holds.pm b/Open-ILS/src/perlmods/lib/OpenILS/Application/Circ/Holds.pm index b11065822b..9fddeeb8bf 100644 --- a/Open-ILS/src/perlmods/lib/OpenILS/Application/Circ/Holds.pm +++ b/Open-ILS/src/perlmods/lib/OpenILS/Application/Circ/Holds.pm @@ -2904,7 +2904,7 @@ sub find_nearest_permitted_hold { # search for what should be the best holds for this copy to fulfill my $best_holds = $U->storagereq( "open-ils.storage.action.hold_request.nearest_hold.atomic", - $user->ws_ou, $copy->id, 10, $hold_stall_interval, $fifo ); + $user->ws_ou, $copy->id, 100, $hold_stall_interval, $fifo ); # Add any pre-targeted holds to the list too? Unless they are already there, anyway. if ($old_holds) { -- 2.43.2