Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTin=b_HTDC5Z+Gha46q8kMaM9qnLr3arO1ARO-SA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing Windows session (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing
Windows session
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 14:34, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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? I've yet to hear of a way a process can exit with a 128 that seems like it could happen in our code. > Also, just to be clear - they tested the "ignore 128 only" patch? Yes. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: