Thiago, maybe re-post your Comment as an Answer. That way the OP can set the checkmark alongside your answer, so the question no longer lists as "unanswered". Plus, you get credit.

Tom, maybe re-post that information as an Answer rather than a Comment. Then you can accept your own answer (set the checkmark alongside it), so your question no longer lists as "unanswered".

AFAIK we users aren't able to change increase this value. If we could, we might be tempted to set it to a very large value

See [@Robert.Cemper]'s answer for how you can decrease it.

Today I am seeing this being caused by a post whose <pre>...</pre> block of SQL code got snipped part way through. No </pre> tag got added, so the rest of the page is monospace font.

Pedro - good to see that DC members were able to help. Now please set the "accepted answer" checkmark that only you (as OP) are able to set. If you're unsure where to look, see my screenshot below:

Maybe worth adding that the two MS packages can be run with command line options suitable for unattended use, e.g.

vcredist_x86.exe /passive /norestart

For a dialog box showing all the command line options:

vcredist_x86.exe /help

or

vcredist_x86.exe /?

I wish an unattended install of Cache would install these runtime prerequisites automatically for us. I think it does that when doing an interactive install, which would imply that the vcredist_x*.exe kits are already bundled inside the cache*.exe installer.

Adding to the other answers, I notice the OP wrote "I need my globals unreadable if other process is in critical area".

This means you will need to obtain LOCKs before referencing (reading) the globals. But in this case you might opt to request shared LOCKs, e.g.

LOCK +(^A#"S",^B#"S",^C#"S")
WRITE !,"^A=",^A,!,"^B=",^B,!,"^C=",^C,!
LOCK -(^A#"S",^B#"S",^C#"S")

The use of shared locks will allow multiple concurrent reader processes, while still blocking all readers if a writer holds conflicting locks. A would-be writer will also be blocked while any readers still hold conflicting locks.

Robert, your first doc link is actually for $TEST. The link for LOCK is http://docs.intersystems.com/latest/csp/docbook/DocBook.UI.Page.cls?KEY=...

You can use a 0 second timeout on the LOCK command. That way your process will proceed immediately and you can check the value of $TEST (either directly, or indirectly using the ELSE command or an argumentless IF) to discover if you got the lock(s) or not.

When processing the two pieces of a timestamp such as $ZTS it is safer to assign the timestamp once to a variable, then operate on that variable, e.g.  instead of

W (+$ZTS-47117*86400) + $J($P($ZTS,",",2),0,0)

use

S zts=$ZTS W (+zts-47117*86400) + $J($P(zts,",",2),0,0)

This avoids the edge case in the original code, where the first evaluation of $ZTS happens just before the midnight rollover and the second evaluation at or just after it.

This continues to happen with 2017.1.1 when doing an unattended install. I have opened ticket 886059 with WRC about it. Turns out I had overlooked this note in the doc:

Did you find it? The checkmark has now been set.

Any suggestions about how to make this facility more obvious to posters?

For the record, this was answered to the satisfaction of the OP by [@Bernd Mueller] in his 28 July 2017 comment, where he wrote:

see here: "Registering Additional File Types with CSP" and "Mapping the CSP File Extensions" right before.

http://docs.intersystems.com/latest/csp/docbook/DocBook.UI.Page.cls?KEY=...

Search improved in August 2017. More info here.

Eric, to mark your question as "answered" on Developer Community, please click the checkmark alongside the answer you (as author of the question) accept.

I'd also like to draw your attention to DC's facility for commenting on an answer (which is what I'm doing here). It's probably not obvious enough, meaning that you response to Alexander displays as a second answer to your original question.

Well done Rob!