From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Asif Naeem <anaeem(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |
Date: | 2015-03-12 14:41:45 |
Message-ID: | 20150312144145.GY3291@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > In this part the only difference is a spawn of cmd /c, but I don't see
> > why it is useful to spawn a new command prompt here for this case, so
> > we could just drop this part. Looking at the log history, this has
> > been added since this code creation..
>
> Taking back my words here. We definitely want to spawn a new process
> in the case of pg_regress, so I think that the best thing to do would
> be to pass the to-be-launched command to get_restrict_token(), and be
> careful with WaitForSingleObject and GetExitCodeProcess() as there are
> cases where we cannot wait for a process, so we are going to need a
> control flag, or to let the callers of get_restricted_token() do the
> wait themselves. I would think that the latter is better, additional
> opinions being welcome.
Maybe we want a specialized routine for pg_regress; maybe
get_restricted_token would call it with some args set to null or false
as appropriate. My point is not to make the other callers of
get_restricted_token more complex.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-12 14:45:33 | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-12 14:38:20 | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |