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.
committed -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
