Re: pg_upgrade test failure
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade test failure |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGKxdepGLuGOmYsRmaWiheBKQoVvyXx2wS-zhmAZavPX4Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade test failure (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 9:54 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > ... I have one more idea ... I also had a second idea, barely good enough to mention and probably just paranoia. In a nearby thread I learned that process exit does not release Windows advisory file locks synchronously, which surprised this Unix hacker; it made me wonder what else might be released lazily after process exit. Handles?! However, as previously mentioned, it's possible that even with fully Unix-like resource cleanup on process exit, we could be confused if we are using "the process that was on the end of this pipe has closed it" as a proxy for "the process is gone, *all* its handles are closed". In any case, the previous kluge should help wallpaper over any of that too, for this test anyway.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: