On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 5:00 AM Andreas Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/8/26 11:08 AM, Chao Li wrote: > > While working on another patch, I happened to notice that > > WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() calls raw exit(1). I think this should use > > proc_exit(1) instead, so that the normal cleanup machinery is not bypassed. > > > > This tiny patch just replaces exit(1) with proc_exit(1) in > > WalRcvWaitForStartPosition(). > > This looks likely to be correct since when we exit in WalReceiverMain() > (on WALRCV_STOPPING and WALRCV_STOPPED) we call proc_exit(1). I feel we > should exit the same way in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() as we do in > WalReceiverMain() and if not I would like a comment explaining why those > two cases are different.
+1 WalRcvWaitForStartPosition, WALRCV_STOPPING before entering wait loop uses proc_exit(0) for WALRCV_STOPPING, while this path should probably use proc_exit(0) as well (not proc_exit(1)), since the stop was a requested shutdown, not an error. Using exit code 1 for a clean stop-on-request seems inconsistent. -- Best, Xuneng
