On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:06 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I don't think we have ever expressed it as such, but certainly we prefer > postmaster to be super robust ... rather live with a some hundred bytes > leak rather than have it die and take the whole database service down > for what's essentially a fringe bug that has bothered no one in a decade > and a half.
Well, yeah. I mean, I'm not saying it's a good idea in this instance to FATAL here. I'm just saying that I don't think there is a general rule that code which does FATAL in the postmaster is automatically wrong, which is what I took Michael to be suggesting. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
