BUG #10330: pg_ctl does not correctly honor "DETACHED_PROCESS"

From: erica(dot)stine(at)mailinator(dot)com
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: BUG #10330: pg_ctl does not correctly honor "DETACHED_PROCESS"
Date: 2014-05-15 15:46:20
Message-ID: 20140515154620.16846.46201@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference: 10330
Logged by: Erica Stine
Email address: erica(dot)stine(at)mailinator(dot)com
PostgreSQL version: 9.3.4
Operating system: Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate
Description:

This executable:

https://github.com/cubiclesoft/createprocess-windows

Allows users to start processes in all sorts of ways that exceed the
limitations of the 'start' command by exposing the full power of the
CreateProcess() API to the command-line. The Apache web server, for
instance, has the problem of starting a hung command prompt using 'start'.
However, using the above tool and calling it with /f=DETACHED_PROCESS causes
'httpd.exe' to correctly and silently start in the background.

'pg_ctl.exe', on the other hand, does not honor DETACHED_PROCESS and
proceeds to create a new console window. There doesn't appear to be an
option to override this undesirable behavior. Trying to use 'postgres.exe'
directly with DETACTHED_PROCESS (and using the stdin, stdout, stderr
options) results in four brand new console windows. It looks like each
'postgres.exe' process gets its own console window.

The fix for this is to NOT create a console window if it doesn't exist and
pass DETACHED_PROCESS to new processes so that the OS isn't creating console
windows either based on executable type. I'm not alone in wanting a
detached startup. Those of us who want isolated installs want to run
PostgreSQL in a portable apps style format, behind the scenes, without using
the Windows Services host.

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sean Story 2014-05-15 16:57:44 homebrew install bug
Previous Message Olivier Macchioni 2014-05-15 15:20:35 Re: BUG #10329: Could not read block 0 in file "base/56100265/57047884": read only 0 of 8192 bytes