Re: Windows installation service

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dann Corbit
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 12:30 PM
> To: 'Dave Page'
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; Bill Luton; Larry McGhaw; Mike McKee;
> Brian Fifer
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Windows installation service
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Page [mailto:dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org]
> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:16 AM
> > To: Dann Corbit
> > Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; Bill Luton; Larry McGhaw; Mike
> McKee;
> > Brian Fifer
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Windows installation service
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > The Windows installation service uses pg_ctl to perform the network
> > > start-up operation.
> > > This program starts up the postmaster and exits.
> > > The net effect of performing the operation in this manner is that
> the
> > > Windows service manager sees the service as "not running" a few
> > minutes
> > > after the startup is complete.  It also prevents proper pause and
> > > restart of the service.
> >
> > Per our offlist conversation, this is not how it works.
> >
> > > As a suggestion:
> > > Instead of installing pg_ctl as the service, start up postgres as
> the
> > > service.  This is how we did our Windows port.  If the idea is
> > appealing
> > > to the PostgreSQL group, we can send our service code modifications
> > for
> > > review as a possible alternative to the current method.
> > >
> > > Another approach that could be equally helpful (along the same
> lines)
> > is
> > > to leave pg_ctl.exe in memory and allow it to control the program.
> >
> > Which is what does happen.
>
> I don't know the reason why, but that is not what happens here.
>
> We see the problem on 64-bit machines with Windows 2008 Server.
> We see the problem on 32-bit machine with Windows 2003 Server.
> We see the problem on 32-bit Windows XP machines.
> It is universal (all of these machines demonstrate the problem).
>
> I did get this email from Mike McKee this morning:
>
> "I noticed a pattern.
>
> The first time it works, and can shutdown.
>
> The second time is where it kind of hangs ...."

I should mention that PostgreSQL is still operational. The Postgres servers are in memory and I am able to perform queries, despite the apparent status of the service.