On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 3/6/18 9:06 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:04 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net > > <mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: > > > > On 1/20/18 10:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > > Unlinking it first seems dangerous, as pointed out by Andres. > > > > > > What about first trying ReplaceFile() and then if it fails with > "target > > > doesn't exist", then call MoveFileEx(). > > > > > > Or the other way around -- try MoveFileEx() first since that seems > to > > > work most of the time today (if it mostly broke we'd be in trouble > > > already), and if it fails with a sharing violation, try > ReplaceFile()? > > > And perhaps end up doing it something similar to what we do with > shared > > > memory which is just to loop over it and try each a couple of > time, > > > before giving up and failing? > > > > This patch was mistakenly left as Needs Review during the last > > commitfest but it's pretty clear that a new patch is required. > > > > OK! No objections against marking this patch RWF. > > Hmmm, I just noticed this categorized as a bug. I thought it was a > refactor. > Yes, that's naturally a bug. Not very critical though. Even so, it looks like the approach needs a rethink so better to wait > for that. > In this thread we've found at least two possible approaches to fix this bug. But both of them need to be implemented and tested. > Marked Returned with Feedback. > OK! ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
