Re: Adding CI to our tree

Hi,

On 2021-10-02 12:59:09 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-10-02 11:05:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't know enough about Windows to evaluate 0001, but I'm a little
> > worried about it because it looks like it's changing our *production*
> > error handling on that platform.
>
> Yea. It's clearly not ready as-is - it's the piece that I was planning to
> write a separate email about.

>
> It's hard to understand what *precisely* SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX etc do.
>
> What I do know is that without the _set_abort_behavior() stuff abort() doesn't
> trigger windows' "crash" paths in at least debugging builds, and that the
> SetErrorMode() and _CrtSetReportMode() changes are necessary to get segfaults
> to reach the crash paths.
>
> The in-tree behaviour turns out to make debugging on windows a major pain, at
> least when compiling with msvc. Crashes never trigger core dumps or "just in
> time" debugging (their term for invoking a debugger upon crash), so one has to
> attach to processes before they crash, to have any chance of debugging.
>
> As far as I can tell this also means that at least for debugging builds,
> pgwin32_install_crashdump_handler() is pretty much dead weight -
> crashDumpHandler() never gets invoked. I think it may get invoked for abort()s
> in production builds, but probably not for segfaults.
>
> And despite SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX we display those annoying "popup" boxes
> telling us about the crash and giving the option to retry, ignore, something
> something. It's all a bit baffling.

FWIW, the latest version of this patch (including an explanation why
SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX isn't useful for our purposes [anymore]) is at (and
above)
https://postgr.es/m/20220110005704.es4el6i2nxlxzwof%40alap3.anarazel.de

Greetings,

Andres Freund