Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fqg7t-0000Ru-H1 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:53:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fqg7q-0006C9-Hq for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:53:18 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fqg7q-0006Bx-8L for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:53:18 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fqg7m-00086W-BU for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:53:17 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w7HErB8M005633; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:53:11 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Mark Lai cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #15333: pg_dump error on large table -- "pg_dump: could not stat file...Unknown error" In-reply-to: References: <153442391458.1505.9181095584291689853@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <13611.1534433145@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Mark Lai message dated "Fri, 17 Aug 2018 08:56:56 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5631.1534517591.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:53:11 -0400 Message-ID: <5632.1534517591@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Mark Lai writes: > I ran the dump on the large table with no jobs flag and got the same error. > ... > The dump was successful on a small table. Weird indeed. Can any Windows developers reproduce this and poke into it? I have a sneaking suspicion that this is related to Windows' known issues with concurrently-opened files, but it's pretty hard to see why there would be a dependency on the size of the file. regards, tom lane