Re: Win32 rename()/unlink() questions

From: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(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 06:03:43
Message-ID: 3D8ABA3F.6030002@mascari.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephan Szabo wrote:
> 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)

Yes! Indeed that does work.

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2002-09-20 06:14:14 Re: Win32 rename()/unlink() questions
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2002-09-20 05:50:36 Re: Win32 rename()/unlink() questions