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


From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>,<pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re:
Date: 2004-08-25 13:58:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
> > But sure, we don't really care if it's a postmaster. Then 
> > OpenProcess() is probably the best way, yes.
> Au contraire!!  One of the problems with the Unix 
> implementation is that you *can't* tell for sure if the 
> target process is a postmaster.  See past discussions about 
> how startup occasionally fails because we get fooled by the 
> PID mentioned in now belonging to pg_ctl or 
> some other Postgres-owned process.
> This is a place where the Windows version can actually be 
> better than the Unix one.  Please fix it and stop imagining 
> that your charter is to duplicate a particular Unix syscall 
> bug-for-bug.

Ok, if you say so :-) I had the general impression we wanted that. But
then let's go with the
send-signal-0-down-the-pipe-and-ignore-it-in-the-backend. :-)



pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-08-25 14:21:32
Subject: Re:
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-25 13:58:03
Subject: Re:

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