From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Antonin Houska <antonin.houska@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: bgworker crashed or not?
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoZedbev57KbAFTwTnhwB7mNSAkvjOZcZXX5pH01Q3-y-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52EBE0E0.8040303@gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY-ra-4ScB5=pnZmqi19OadzzM=GDKn_qvm1D+6mJ15zA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30853.1391440857@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoa047dAbaEToo6QUUTMhwi4QN+EnaM+DXgW7O-9zjm=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <32224.1391444962@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZedbev57KbAFTwTnhwB7mNSAkvjOZcZXX5pH01Q3-y-g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
 message dated "Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:34:14 -0500"
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:45:43 -0500
Message-ID: <32578.1391445943@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Agreed, but after further reflection it seems like if you've declared
>> a restart interval, then "done until restart interval" is probably the
>> common case.  So how about ...

> I think what I proposed is better for two reasons:

> 1. It doesn't change the meaning of exit(1) vs. 9.3.  All background
> worker code I've seen or heard about (which is admittedly not all
> there is) does exit(1) because the current exit(0) behavior doesn't
> seem to be what anyone wants.

Hm.  If that's actually the case, then I agree that preserving the
current behavior of exit(1) is useful.  I'd been assuming we were
breaking things anyway.

			regards, tom lane


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