Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 17:09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I would be inclined to write this off as Windows randomness that's
>> unfixable on our end. We could recommend that people take a closer
>> look at what AV software they have installed and maybe try some other
>> one.
> It may well be, but we can at least attempt to mitigate it, no?
I'm not excited about a "mitigation" approach that introduces new
data-loss hazards of its very own. That doesn't meet the Less Evil
standard in my eyes.
[ thinks for a bit... ] Although maybe it'd be all right to piggyback
on the dead-man-switch code that already exists in pmsignal.c. If the
child process hasn't got as far as doing MarkPostmasterChildActive,
then in principle it should be okay to assume it hasn't touched shared
memory. This really is independent of what exit code it returned.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
