On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> So the attached modified patch adjusts the PID-match logic and some >>> comments, but is otherwise what I posted before. I believe that this >>> might actually work on Windows, but I have no way to test it. Someone >>> please try that? (Don't forget to test the service-start path, too.) > >> If "pg_ctl start" is invoked directly from a command prompt, it works. >> Now, if I run "pg_ctl start" within a script (in an msysgit >> environment for example), pg_ctl fails, complaining that >> postmaster.pid already exists. The TAP tests get broken as well, > > Reading that again, I think you mean that "pg_ctl start" works but you > didn't try "pg_ctl start -w" manually? Because it's "-w" that's at > issue here, and the failing test cases are using that.
Yes, sorry. I fat-fingered the command from the prompt and forgot the -w switch. test_postmaster_connection just behaves incorrectly, and exists immediately with PQPING_NO_RESPONSE, aka "Stopped waiting, could not start server, blah". > I think there is still room to salvage something without fully rewriting > the postmaster invocation logic to avoid using CMD, because it's still > true that checking whether the CMD process is still there should be as > good as checking the postmaster proper. We just can't use kill() for it. > I'd be inclined to get rid of the use of kill() on Unix as well; as Noah > mentioned upthread, if we're using fork/exec we might as well pay > attention to waitpid's results instead. On Windows, I imagine that the > thing to do is have start_postmaster() save aside the handle for the CMD > process, and then in test_postmaster_connection(), check the handle state > to see if the process is still running (I assume there's a way to do > that). That would be WaitForSingleObject(handle, ms_timeout) == WAIT_OBJECT_0, no? The handle should be picked up from CreateRestrictedProcess, and I think that CloseHandle should not be called on pi.hProcess if we are going to wait for it afterwards. Reference: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms687032%28v=vs.85%29.aspx > I can take care of the Unix side of that, but as before, somebody else > would need to code and test the Windows side. It's probably just a few > lines of code to add ... any volunteers? I could give it a shot, do you still want to rework the Unix portion of the patch? There are not many folks around able to test the patch either way. Regards, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
