On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 8:11 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which > >> would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace. > > > That proposed change is fine with me. > > > As to the question of whether it's a real bug, nobody can prove > > anything unless we actually run it down. > > Agreed, and I'll even grant your point that if it is an HPUX-specific > or IA64-specific bug, it is not worth spending huge amounts of time > to isolate. The problem is that we don't know that. What we do know > so far is that if it can occur elsewhere, it's rare --- so we'd better > be prepared to glean as much info as possible if we do get such a > failure. Hence my thought of s/ERROR/PANIC/. And I'd be in favor of > any other low-effort change we can make to instrument the case better.
OK, pushed (except I realised that all the PIDs involved were int, not pid_t). Let's see...
