On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> I like that better actually ... one less thing for developers to get wrong. >> >>> The attached patch appears to work correctly on MacOS X. I did check, >>> BTW: getppid() in the attached process returns gdb's pid. Poor! >> >> Looks good to me. >> >>> For my own purposes, I would be just as happy to apply this only to >>> master. But I wonder if anyone wants to argue for back-patching, to >>> help debug existing installations? >> >> Given the lack of non-developer complaints, I see no need to backpatch. > > Well, non-developers don't tend to attach gdb very often. Alvaro > mentioned a problem installation upthread, thus the question.
Hearing no cries of "please-oh-please-backpatch-this", I've committed it just to master. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
