On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:06:52PM -0400, 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.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
