Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> pg_control is certainly not ever deleted or renamed, and in fact I >>> believe there's an LWLock enforcing that only one PG process at a time >>> is even touching it. So we need another theory to explain this one :-( > >> Right. What we need is a list of which processes have handles open to >> the file, which can be dumped using Process Explorer (there are other >> sysinternals tools to do it as well, but PE is probably the easiest)- > > Hmm, are you just assuming that the underlying error is > ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION? One of the things that's bothered me all along > is that there are a dozen different Windows error codes that we map to > EACCES ... perhaps it's time to think about disambiguating that a bit > better? I was. Using PE is just one way to prove that was it :-) But yeah, that's probably a good idea. A quick look at the code says we should at least ask people who have this problem to give it a run with logging at DEBUG5 which should then log exactly what the errorcode was. Or are you seeing more places that need such logging first? //Magnus
