On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 21:14, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> 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.. > > Can we please link to one of those URLs I mentioned so we have > definitive information on what is happening? I think the Microsoft URL is > best: > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/156484
That URL is specifically labeled to only be valid for NT4. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
