Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> We certainly now have MANY documented field complaints at least of the
> >> exit-128-on-Windows problem, if not the more general
> >> backend-exits-without-going-through-the-normal-cleanup-path problem.
> >
> > Right, which is why I still don't care to risk back-porting a fix for
> > the latter.
>
> It's hard to say what the safest option is, I think. There seem to be
> basically three proposals on the table:
>
> 1. Back-port the dead-man switch, and ignore exit 128.
> 2. Don't back-port the dead-man switch, but ignore exit 128 anyway.
> 3. Revert to Magnus's original solution.
>
> Each of these has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of #1
> is that it is safer than #2, and that is usually something we prize
> fairly highly. The disadvantage of #1 is that it involves
> back-porting the dead-man switch, but on the flip side that code has
> been out in the field for over a year now in 8.4, and AFAIK we haven't
> any trouble with it. Solution #3 should be approximately as safe as
> solution #1, and has the advantage of touching less code in the back
> branches, but on the other hand it is also NEW code. So I think it's
> arguable which is the best solution. I think I like option #2 least
> as among those choices, but it's a tough call.
Well, the dead-man timer is for all platforms, while the 128 return
failure is Win32-only, so I don't see why applying the dead-man timer
makes sense when it might destabalize all platforms, when the bug is
just on Win32, and I don't think using defines to make the dead-man
timer Win32-only makes sense.
I think we have clear enough evidence that 128 on Win32 means
no-such-child and we can be sure the child never got started on that
platform.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +