On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 21:14, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 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
That URL is specifically labeled to only be valid for NT4.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/