From: Thomas Berezansky Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 18:13:17 +0000 (-0400) Subject: Nearest Hold: Look at 100 instead of 10 holds X-Git-Url: https://old-git.evergreen-ils.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=b3ef0085bcdf7eb64f1098f930614781f52652cd;p=evergreen%2Fequinox.git 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 --- 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) {