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..
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
