Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-03-07 13:54:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The big picture here is that in the scenario being debated in the other
>> thread, exit() in a child process forked from a backend will execute that
>> backend's on_detach actions *even if the code had done on_exit_reset after
>> the fork*.
> Hm, aren't those actions called via shmem_exit() calling
> dsm_backend_shutdown() et al? I think that should be cleared by
> on_shmem_exit()?
But dsm_backend_shutdown gets called whether or not any shmem_exit
actions are registered.
> I think you're misunderstanding me. I am saying we *should* defend
> against it. Our opinions just seem to differ on what to do when the
> scenario is detected. I am saying we should scream bloody murder (which
> admittedly is a hard in a child), you want to essentially declare it
> supported.
And if we scream bloody murder, what will happen? Absolutely nothing
except we'll annoy our users. They won't have control over the
third-party libraries that are doing what you want to complain about.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
