From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com |
Cc: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_ctl start may return 0 even if the postmaster has been already started on Windows |
Date: | 2023-09-08 05:17:16 |
Message-ID: | 20230908.141716.1245636448942130750.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 7 Sep 2023 10:53:41 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote in
> My first idea is that to move the checking part to above, but this may not handle
> the case the postmaster is still alive (now sure this is real issue). Do we have to
> add a new indicator which ensures the identity of processes for windows?
> Please tell me how you feel.
It doesn't seem to work as expected. We still lose the relationship
between the PID file and the launched postmaster.
> > Now, I
> > also recall that the processes spawned by pg_ctl on Windows make the
> > status handling rather tricky to reason about..
>
> Did you say about the below comment? Currently I have no idea to make
> codes more proper, sorry.
>
> ```
> * On Windows, we may be checking the postmaster's parent shell, but
> * that's fine for this purpose.
> ```
Ditching cmd.exe seems like a big hassle. So, on the flip side, I
tried to identify the postmaster PID using the shell's PID, and it
seem to work. The APIs used are avaiable from XP/2003 onwards.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_ctl_waits_for_postmasters_pid_on_windows.patch | text/x-patch | 3.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-09-08 05:21:44 | Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica |
Previous Message | Lepikhov Andrei | 2023-09-08 05:11:31 | Re: Optimize planner memory consumption for huge arrays |