From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: windows doesn't notice backend death |
Date: | 2009-05-04 09:03:27 |
Message-ID: | 49FEAF5F.6000909@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> justin wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Have M$ really been stupid
>>> enough to make an external kill look just like an exit() call?
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>>
>>>
>> kind of :-(
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it not be easy to set the normal exitcode to something other
>> than 1 to see the difference
>> ExitProcess()
>>
>
> Not really, as Tom showed later this is an example of a more general
> problem. I think his solution of detecting when backends have cleaned up
> nicely and when they have not is the right way to go.
Well, if we picked a different value than 1, the probability would
certainly go up that things work. I bet most external libs that do such
an evil thing would be doing exit(1). If we picked a return code way up
in the space (say something well above 2^16), the likelihood that a lib
would be using exactly that one decreases drastically. But there's no
guarantee - so it'd just be a "better workaround".
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-05-04 09:11:03 | Re: windows doesn't notice backend death |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-05-04 08:59:50 | Re: windows doesn't notice backend death |