On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:54, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 14:34, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@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.
Ok, applied. Please verify that it matches your expectations :D -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers