Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows
Date
Msg-id 20171128005901.g6ktibivyy4uaqxk@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-11-28 09:47:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Attached patch atomic-pgrename-windows-1.patch fixes this problem.  It
> > appears to be possible to atomically replace file on Windows – ReplaceFile()
> > does that.  ReplaceFiles() requires target file to exist, this is why we
> > still need to call MoveFileEx() when it doesn't exist.
> 
> Do you think that it could be safer to unlink the target file first
> with pgunlink()? This way you make sure that the target file is
> removed and not locked. This change makes me worrying about the
> introduction of more race conditions.

That seems like a *seriously* bad idea. What if we crash inbetween the
unlink and the rename?


I'm confused about the need for this. Shouldn't normally
opening all files FILE_SHARE_DELETE take care of this? See
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858(v=vs.85).aspx
"Note  Delete access allows both delete and rename operations."

Is there an external process active that doesn't set that flag? Are we
missing setting it somewhere?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp