Re: rmtree() failure on Windows
От | Reini Urban |
---|---|
Тема | Re: rmtree() failure on Windows |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 417FB073.30001@x-ray.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: rmtree() failure on Windows (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: rmtree() failure on Windows
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan schrieb: > 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. Oops! 5min timeout for success is certainly problematic. >> 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". Good! Relieve. >> 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. Ah sorry. I forgot. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: