Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Patrick Earl <patearl(at)patearl(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.
Date: 2007-01-12 17:22:27
Message-ID: 8170.1168622547@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> pg_control is certainly not ever deleted or renamed, and in fact I
>> believe there's an LWLock enforcing that only one PG process at a time
>> is even touching it. So we need another theory to explain this one :-(

> Right. What we need is a list of which processes have handles open to
> the file, which can be dumped using Process Explorer (there are other
> sysinternals tools to do it as well, but PE is probably the easiest)-

Hmm, are you just assuming that the underlying error is
ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION? One of the things that's bothered me all along
is that there are a dozen different Windows error codes that we map to
EACCES ... perhaps it's time to think about disambiguating that a bit
better?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brandon Aiken 2007-01-12 17:23:38 Re: Version 8.2 for HP-UX
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2007-01-12 17:08:31 Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-01-12 17:25:55 Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2007-01-12 17:08:31 Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.