Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-05-03 15:37:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And who's to say that ignoring unexpected child deaths is okay,
>> anyway? We could hardly be sure that the dead process hadn't been
>> connected to shared memory.
> I don't think checking the exit status of unexpected children to see
> whether we should crash-restart out of that concern is meaningful: We
> don't know that the child didn't do anything bad with shared memory when
> they exited with exit(1), instead of exit(2).
Hmm, by that argument, any unexpected child PID in reaper() ought to be
grounds for a restart, regardless of its exit code. Which'd be fine by
me. I'm on board with being more restrictive about this, not less so.
> Do you feel the same about having different logging between the "known"
> and "unknown" child processes?
No objection to logging such cases more clearly, for sure.
regards, tom lane
