Re: rmtree() failure on Windows

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Reini Urban <rurban(at)x-ray(dot)at>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: rmtree() failure on Windows
Date: 2004-10-27 14:02:17
Message-ID: 417FAA69.2080707@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


problem area found. see below.

Reini Urban wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan schrieb:
>
>> Here is some more info. Below is a trace from dropdb. There is a loop
>> around the rmdir() calls which I have set to time out at 600 seconds.
>> The call eventually succeeds after around 300 seconds (I've seen this
>> several times). It looks like we are the victim of some caching - the
>> directory still thinks it has some of the files it has told us we
>> have deleted successfully.
>
>
> 300 secs (!) fs timeout is really broken.
> Looks more like a locking or network timeout issue.
> What error codes does unlink(3) return?

success.

>
> Why don't you use DeletFileA() instead of unlink()?
>
> Or even better, why don't you use this delete on close snippet instead:

[snip]

Before I tried anything like that I tried one more thing. I disabled the
background writer and the problem stopped. So now we know the "culprit".

>
>
> It should only happen a ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION on NT systems with
> such a long timeout. This is then a concurrency problem. win95 will
> not return ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION, only ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED
>
>
We don't support W95/W98/WME at all. The tests were done on XP-Pro.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2004-10-27 14:13:56 Re: plans for bitmap indexes?
Previous Message Karel Zak 2004-10-27 11:59:38 sign parsing (was: Re: [HACKERS] to_char/to_number loses sign)

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Reini Urban 2004-10-27 14:28:03 Re: rmtree() failure on Windows
Previous Message Karel Zak 2004-10-27 12:59:55 Re: 8.0-NLS: czech