Message-ID: <6a42c40e-eb81-4212-9bca-8c0eb02d47d1@proxel.se>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 22:59:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Use proc_exit() in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition
To: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <74381238-4E8A-4621-B794-57025DCCE0BA@gmail.com>
From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <74381238-4E8A-4621-B794-57025DCCE0BA@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6a42c40e-eb81-4212-9bca-8c0eb02d47d1%40proxel.se>
Precedence: bulk

On 4/8/26 11:08 AM, Chao Li wrote:
> While working on another patch, I happened to notice that WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() calls raw exit(1). I think this should use proc_exit(1) instead, so that the normal cleanup machinery is not bypassed.
> 
> This tiny patch just replaces exit(1) with proc_exit(1) in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition().

This looks likely to be correct since when we exit in WalReceiverMain() 
(on WALRCV_STOPPING and WALRCV_STOPPED) we call proc_exit(1). I feel we 
should exit the same way in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() as we do in 
WalReceiverMain() and if not I would like a comment explaining why those 
two cases are different.

Andreas