MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <74381238-4E8A-4621-B794-57025DCCE0BA@gmail.com>
 <6a42c40e-eb81-4212-9bca-8c0eb02d47d1@proxel.se>
In-Reply-To: <6a42c40e-eb81-4212-9bca-8c0eb02d47d1@proxel.se>
From: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 09:09:08 +0800
Message-ID: 
 <CABPTF7V=y2rHC=gLTeC-42aRc+jcXueomUBjbNiy3pOfhJs3_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Use proc_exit() in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition
To: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABPTF7V%3Dy2rHC%3DgLTeC-42aRc%2BjcXueomUBjbNiy3pOfhJs3_A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 5:00=E2=80=AFAM Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>=
 wrote:
>
> On 4/8/26 11:08 AM, Chao Li wrote:
> > While working on another patch, I happened to notice that WalRcvWaitFor=
StartPosition() calls raw exit(1). I think this should use proc_exit(1) ins=
tead, so that the normal cleanup machinery is not bypassed.
> >
> > This tiny patch just replaces exit(1) with proc_exit(1) in WalRcvWaitFo=
rStartPosition().
>
> 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.

+1

WalRcvWaitForStartPosition, WALRCV_STOPPING before entering wait loop
uses proc_exit(0) for WALRCV_STOPPING, while this path should probably
use proc_exit(0) as well (not proc_exit(1)), since the stop was a
requested shutdown, not an error. Using exit code 1 for a clean
stop-on-request seems inconsistent.

--=20
Best,
Xuneng