| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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 14:38:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTdf7rqTCi4-e--Zw28Cou_Ki6B4tXVZYBH=ZbgaSVy7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-12 14:41:45 | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |
| Previous Message | Skylar Thompson | 2015-03-12 14:32:10 | Re: BUG #12856: No space left on device, but there is space! |