| From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Bruce Momjian' <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: win32 open patch for held unlink |
| Date: | 2004-03-16 03:17:31 |
| Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F38B@harris.memetrics.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
> Claudio, how does this handle renames if the file is open by someone
> else? Does this remove the need to loop over the rename?
To be honest, I don't know that it does. [Will report back later.]
Two points though:
a) This could doesn't alleviate the needs for dirmod.c, as far as I'm aware.
That seems to be there for a different reason, namely that there appears to
be some timing issue between creating a file and issuing an unlink/rename.
b) Do we have a case where rename's can block because of the file being held
open by another process? I haven't tripped over this yet...
Cheers,
Claudio
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-03-16 03:22:55 | Re: win32 open patch for held unlink |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-16 03:09:02 | Re: win32 open patch for held unlink |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-03-16 03:22:55 | Re: win32 open patch for held unlink |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-16 03:09:02 | Re: win32 open patch for held unlink |