On 6/2/17 23:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/2/17 15:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's certainly plausible that we could have the latch code just ignore
>> WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH if not IsUnderPostmaster.  I think that the original
>> reasoning for not doing that was that the calling code should know which
>> environment it's in, and not pass an unimplementable wait-exit reason;
>> so silently ignoring the bit could mask a bug.  Perhaps that argument is
>> no longer attractive.  Alternatively, we could fix the relevant call sites
>> to do "(IsUnderPostmaster ? WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH : 0)", and keep the strict
>> behavior for the majority of call sites.
> There are a lot of those call sites.  (And a lot of duplicate code for
> what to do if postmaster death actually happens.)  I doubt we want to
> check them all.
> The attached patch fixes the reported issue for me.


Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to