Tom Lane 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.
Here is a more detailed explaination of the failure and its relation to desktop heap: http://kbalertz.com/Feedback.aspx?kbNumber=184802 -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers