Tom Lane wrote:
> Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> However, I don't see exactly how that can win?
> > Why not?
> More like "why?". The problem we have is with making sure that existing
> files we don't want anymore will go away in a timely fashion. I don't
> see how it helps to modify file creation to allow overwrite. We are not
> (in most deletion cases) expecting anyone to re-create that file later.
> So unless I'm totally misunderstanding where you mean to use
> this code, I don't see the point.
I think you might be.
I'm not suggesting that we modify file creation to allow overwrite. The
suggestion is that we modify file creation to allow delete. Win32 _open()
call opens files in a manner that does not allow them to be deleted when
held by another process. However, "replacing" the open() call with an
orchestrated call to CreateFile/_open_osfhandle appears to give us exactly
that behaviour we expect from open() under *nix (specifically, being able to
unlink a file held by another process).
Am we talking at cross-purposes here?
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Tyler Mitchell||Date: 2004-03-13 00:11:01|
|Subject: no rule to make target dynloader.o|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-03-12 23:52:31|
|Subject: Re: fsync with sync, and Win32 unlink |