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
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. |
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. |