Hi, Heikki!
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 21:00, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > On 23/10/2024 12:18, Pavel Borisov wrote: > > Hi, Hackers! > > > > Current comments on the usage of WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH state that it > > should be used for scenarios of finishing other than immediately i.e. > > returning values and waiting for postmaster dies. > > In fact, in parts of the code, it's currently used to immediately exit > > or throw FATAL (in the walsender and in libpq). > > > > So I propose change the comments on WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH stating that it > > could be used for both cases: for processing and setting return values > > if that's needed, and for immediate exit otherwise. > > I see what you mean, but I don't think the proposed patch is making it > better. With WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH, the WaitLatch call returns if the > postmaster dies. What the caller does then is the caller's business. > That's different from WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH in that with > WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, WaitLatch itself will do the exit(), not the caller. > That was exactly my point. Actually the caller should not wait, it could do whatever it wants contrary to the existing comments: > WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH: Wait for postmaster to die I don't insist on this patch, but existing comments on this look somewhat misleading. Regards, Pavel Borisov
