On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 15:58, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> Yeah, that seems very plausible, although exactly how to verify I don't >>> know. > >> And here is confirmation from the Microsoft web site: > >> In some instances, calling GetExitCode() against the failed process >> indicates the following exit code: >> 128L ERROR_WAIT_NO_CHILDREN - There are no child processes to wait for. > > Given the existence of the deadman switch mechanism (which I hadn't > remembered when this thread started), I'm coming around to the idea that > we could just treat exit(128) as nonfatal on Windows. If for some > reason the child hadn't died instantly at startup, the deadman switch > would distinguish that from the case described here.
Just because I had written it before you posted that, here's how the win32-specific-set-a-flag-when-we're-in-control thing would look. But if we're convinced that just ignoring error 128 is safe, then that's obviously a simpler patch.. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
win32_early_death.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
