From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Yasir <yasir(dot)hussain(dot)shah(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_ctl start may return 0 even if the postmaster has been already started on Windows |
Date: | 2025-03-26 08:18:28 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm2h5wyuRszcUtQen77PkZL1gR57KqSjq=2C5oK9qL8tiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 at 00:03, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 8:04 AM Yasir <yasir(dot)hussain(dot)shah(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Please ignore the above 4 lines in my review. See my comments in blue.
>
> OK, so I think it's unclear what the next steps are for this patch.
>
> 1. On June 3rd, Michael Paquier said that Tom Lane proposed that,
> after doing what the patch currently does, we could simplify some
> other stuff. The details are unclear, and Tom hasn't commented.
>
> 2. On June 29th, Noah Misch proposed a platform-independent way of
> solving the problem.
>
> 3. On July 12th, Sutou Kouhei proposed using CreateProcess() to start
> the postmaster instead of cmd.exe.
>
> 4. On July 16th, Yasir Shah said that he tested the patch and found
> that the problem only exists in v17, not any prior release, which is
> contrary to my understanding of the situation. He also proposed a
> minor tweak to the patch itself.
>
> So, as I see it, we have three possible ways forward here. First, we
> could stick with the current patch, possibly with further work as per
> [1] or adjustments as per [4]. Second, we could abandon the current
> approach and adopt Noah's proposal in [2]. Third, we could possibly
> abandon the current approach and adopt Sutou's proposal in [3]. I say
> "possibly" because I can't personally assess whether this approach is
> feasible.
Thank you very much, Robert, for summarizing this. If anyone has
suggestions on which approach might work best, please share them to
help move this discussion forward.
Regards,
Vignesh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kirill Reshke | 2025-03-26 08:37:32 | Re: [PATCH] avoid double scanning in function byteain |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-03-26 08:05:17 | Re: Allow default \watch interval in psql to be configured |