On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So the attached modified patch adjusts the PID-match logic and some
>>> comments, but is otherwise what I posted before. I believe that this
>>> might actually work on Windows, but I have no way to test it. Someone
>>> please try that? (Don't forget to test the service-start path, too.)
>
>> If "pg_ctl start" is invoked directly from a command prompt, it works.
>> Now, if I run "pg_ctl start" within a script (in an msysgit
>> environment for example), pg_ctl fails, complaining that
>> postmaster.pid already exists. The TAP tests get broken as well,
>
> Reading that again, I think you mean that "pg_ctl start" works but you
> didn't try "pg_ctl start -w" manually? Because it's "-w" that's at
> issue here, and the failing test cases are using that.
Yes, sorry. I fat-fingered the command from the prompt and forgot the
-w switch. test_postmaster_connection just behaves incorrectly, and
exists immediately with PQPING_NO_RESPONSE, aka "Stopped waiting,
could not start server, blah".
> I think there is still room to salvage something without fully rewriting
> the postmaster invocation logic to avoid using CMD, because it's still
> true that checking whether the CMD process is still there should be as
> good as checking the postmaster proper. We just can't use kill() for it.
> I'd be inclined to get rid of the use of kill() on Unix as well; as Noah
> mentioned upthread, if we're using fork/exec we might as well pay
> attention to waitpid's results instead. On Windows, I imagine that the
> thing to do is have start_postmaster() save aside the handle for the CMD
> process, and then in test_postmaster_connection(), check the handle state
> to see if the process is still running (I assume there's a way to do
> that).
That would be WaitForSingleObject(handle, ms_timeout) ==
WAIT_OBJECT_0, no? The handle should be picked up from
CreateRestrictedProcess, and I think that CloseHandle should not be
called on pi.hProcess if we are going to wait for it afterwards.
Reference:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms687032%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
> I can take care of the Unix side of that, but as before, somebody else
> would need to code and test the Windows side. It's probably just a few
> lines of code to add ... any volunteers?
I could give it a shot, do you still want to rework the Unix portion
of the patch? There are not many folks around able to test the patch
either way.
Regards,
--
Michael
