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

Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW
Date: 2004-03-05 14:10:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32pgsql-patches
Magnus Hagander said:
>> > I've seen both these messages after each other when -i is not
>> > specified. Been meaning to adress the issue of it not failing
>> > gracefully without -i on win32.
>> >
>> > Anyway. It seems the postmaster goes down while a child process is
>> > still going up (stats collector, I guess) or something along that
>> > line. This way the child can't attach to shared memory, and
>> there you
>> > go.
>> >
>> > If you add PID information to the log, you will notice that the
>> > messages are from two different processes.
>> >
>> Is there a case for forcing -i and ignoring the GUC setting
>> on Windows? Since we can't do Unix domain sockets there it
>> would seem to make sense.
> Yeah, that could be done. I was more into doing a generic fix that
> would fail gracefully in any case when the server is not listening on
> anything (no Unix, no TCPIP) and error out then.
> Are there any other platforms which don't have unix sockets? If not,
> then that thought is not valid, and we shuold just force it on win32.
> If not, how do they handle starting of the postmaster without -i today?
> And do we want the same behaviour there?
> Perhaps we should force it to open a tcp socket on only? That
> way we don't suddenly open up to external connections without the user
> asking for it.

Hmm. That also raises the question of what we should do if virtual_host is

[thinks some more ...]



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-03-05 14:32:38
Subject: Re: A plan to improve error messages with context, hint and details.
Previous:From: Alex J. AvrietteDate: 2004-03-05 13:49:31
Subject: Re: Slony-I makes progress

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-03-05 14:53:54
Subject: Re: notice about costly ri checks (2)
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-03-05 12:52:40
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2004-03-05 14:27:26
Subject: APC + socket restrictions under Win32?
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-03-05 13:24:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group