On 2016-06-29 18:58, Robert Haas wrote:
This code predates be7558162acc5578d0b2cf0c8d4c76b6076ce352, prior to which proc_exit(0) forced an immediate, unconditional restart. It's true that, given that commit, changing this code to do proc_exit(0) instead of proc_exit(1) would be harmless. However, people writing background workers that might need to work with 9.3 would be best advised to stick with proc_exit(1). Therefore, I maintain that this is not broken and doesn't need to be fixed.
Then I'd argue that it ought to be documented in form of a C comment for people writing background workers and for those who might want to "fix" this in the future.
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers