Re: pg_ctl start may return 0 even if the postmaster has been already started on Windows

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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