On 23/10/2024 20:29, Pavel Borisov wrote:
Hi, Heikki!
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 21:00, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi
<mailto:hlinn...@iki.fi>> wrote:
On 23/10/2024 12:18, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> Hi, Hackers!
>
> Current comments on the usage of WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH state that it
> should be used for scenarios of finishing other than immediately
i.e.
> returning values and waiting for postmaster dies.
> In fact, in parts of the code, it's currently used to immediately
exit
> or throw FATAL (in the walsender and in libpq).
>
> So I propose change the comments on WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH stating
that it
> could be used for both cases: for processing and setting return
values
> if that's needed, and for immediate exit otherwise.
I see what you mean, but I don't think the proposed patch is making it
better. With WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH, the WaitLatch call returns if the
postmaster dies. What the caller does then is the caller's business.
That's different from WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH in that with
WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, WaitLatch itself will do the exit(), not the
caller.
That was exactly my point. Actually the caller should not wait, it could
do whatever it wants contrary to the existing comments:
> WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH: Wait for postmaster to die
I don't insist on this patch, but existing comments on this look
somewhat misleading.
Ok I seem to totally not understand what the problem is then. The
comment seems fine to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
