Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Chris Travers <chris(at)metatrontech(dot)com>, Cristian Bittel <cbittel(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session
Date: 2010-09-29 13:45:15
Message-ID: AANLkTinm5=TY+vEcYKzdewFCtJ_jCj7LA3R8GSzNzk=n@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 14:34, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> It's hard to say what the safest option is, I think.  There seem to be
>>> basically three proposals on the table:
>>
>>> 1. Back-port the dead-man switch, and ignore exit 128.
>>> 2. Don't back-port the dead-man switch, but ignore exit 128 anyway.
>>> 3. Revert to Magnus's original solution.
>>
>>> Each of these has advantages and disadvantages.  The advantage of #1
>>> is that it is safer than #2, and that is usually something we prize
>>> fairly highly.  The disadvantage of #1 is that it involves
>>> back-porting the dead-man switch, but on the flip side that code has
>>> been out in the field for over a year now in 8.4, and AFAIK we haven't
>>> any trouble with it.  Solution #3 should be approximately as safe as
>>> solution #1, and has the advantage of touching less code in the back
>>> branches, but on the other hand it is also NEW code.  So I think it's
>>> arguable which is the best solution.  I think I like option #2 least
>>> as among those choices, but it's a tough call.
>>
>> Well, I don't want to use Magnus' original solution in 8.4 or up,
>> so I don't like #3 much: it's not only new code but code which would
>> get very limited testing.  And I don't believe that the risk of
>> unexpected use of exit(128) is large enough to make #1 preferable to #2.
>> YMMV.
>
> So, can we go with #2 for the next point releases of <= 8.3? I
> understand that our customer who has been testing that approach hasn't
> seen any unexpected side-effects.

Do we feel this is safe enough?

Also, just to be clear - they tested the "ignore 128 only" patch? Or
did they test the patch that also had some global events implementing
a "win32-only deadman switch"?


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-09-29 13:46:10
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session
Previous:From: Boxuan ZhaiDate: 2010-09-29 13:29:09
Subject: Re: ask for review of MERGE

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-09-29 13:46:10
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session
Previous:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2010-09-29 13:02:48
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Mapping Hibernate boolean to smallint(Postgresql)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group