"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FILE_SHARE_DELETE
>
> I think this is what we want. It passes regression tests on my machine.
> I never managed to reproduce the original problem on this machine, so
> don't know if it solves the problem, but I don't think it makes it worse
> :-)
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It looks straightforward to apply our reimplemented pgwin32_open()
>> followed by fdopen(), but since I don't have a Windows build
>> environment I couldn't test the patch. Please take a look at it.
> I think this is what we want. It passes regress
> >> It looks to me like we have implemented Windows'
> FILE_SHARE_DELETE
> >> flag for open() calls but not for fopen(). Isn't this a
> problem?
> >> We do use fopen() for stuff like pgstat.stat.
>
> > That definitely sounds like a problem, there is no reason why the
> > issue shouldn't occur fo
> > The code 2 means ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, "The system cannot find
> the
> > file specified." and the code 32 means ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION,
> "The
> > process cannot access the file because it is being used by
> another process."
>
> The first of those is probably normal operation --- we remove
>
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It looks to me like we have implemented Windows' FILE_SHARE_DELETE
>> flag for open() calls but not for fopen(). Isn't this a problem?
>> We do use fopen() for stuff like pgstat.stat.
> That definitely sounds like a problem, there is no reason why
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tested HEAD on Windows and saw some Windows-specific logs.
> LOG: Windows fopen("base/16384/pg_internal.init","rb") failed: code 2, errno
> 2
> LOG: Windows fopen("global/pgstat.stat","rb") failed: code 32, errno 13
> The code 2 means ERROR_FILE
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just looked over the buildfarm results and was struck by the
> observation that the stats regression test, which lately had been
> failing once-in-a-while on Windows and never anywhere else, has a
> batting average of 0-for-10-or-so over the past 24 hours o
Tom Lane wrote:
> I just looked over the buildfarm results and was struck by the
> observation that the stats regression test, which lately had been
> failing once-in-a-while on Windows and never anywhere else, has a
> batting average of 0-for-10-or-so over the past 24 hours on the Windows
> buildf
I just looked over the buildfarm results and was struck by the
observation that the stats regression test, which lately had been
failing once-in-a-while on Windows and never anywhere else, has a
batting average of 0-for-10-or-so over the past 24 hours on the Windows
buildfarm machines. I still hav
