From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Win32 rename()/unlink() questions |
Date: | 2002-09-20 05:50:36 |
Message-ID: | 20020919224718.H36366-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Mike Mascari wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Mike Mascari wrote:
> >
> >>Actually, looking at the pg_pwd code, you want to determine a
> >>way for:
> >>
> >>1. Process 1 opens "foo"
> >>2. Process 2 opens "foo"
> >>3. Process 1 creates "bar"
> >>4. Process 1 renames "bar" to "foo"
> >>5. Process 2 can continue to read data from the open file handle
> >>and get the original "foo" data.
> >
> >
> > Yep, that's it.
> >
>
> So far, MoveFileEx("foo", "bar", MOVEFILE_REPLACE_EXISTING)
> returns "Access Denied" when Process 1 attempts the rename. But
> I'm continuing to investigate the possibilities...
Does a sequence like
Process 1 opens "foo"
Process 2 opens "foo"
Process 1 creates "bar"
Process 1 renames "foo" to <something>
- where something is generated to not overlap an existing file
Process 1 renames "bar" to "foo"
Process 2 continues reading
let you do the replace and keep reading (at the penalty that
you've now got to have a way to know when to remove the
various <something>s)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2002-09-20 06:03:43 | Re: Win32 rename()/unlink() questions |
Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2002-09-20 05:35:23 | Re: Win32 rename()/unlink() questions |