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 -- 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