Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +