Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 15:58, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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.
>
> 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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +