On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Piotr Stefaniak >> <postg...@piotr-stefaniak.me> wrote: >>>> while investigating the shm_mq code and its testing module I made some >>>> cosmetic improvements there. You can see them in the attached diff file. >>> >>> Revised patch attached. >> >> The first hunk of this corrects an outdated comment, so we should >> certainly apply that. I'm not seeing what the value of the other bits >> is. > > - proc_exit(1); > + proc_exit(0); > Looking again at this thread with fresh eyes, isn't the origin of the > confusion the fact that we do need to have a non-zero error code so as > the worker is never restarted thanks to BGW_NEVER_RESTART? Even with > that, it is a strange concept to leave with proc_exit(1) in the case > where a worker left correctly..
This code predates be7558162acc5578d0b2cf0c8d4c76b6076ce352, prior to which proc_exit(0) forced an immediate, unconditional restart. It's true that, given that commit, changing this code to do proc_exit(0) instead of proc_exit(1) would be harmless. However, people writing background workers that might need to work with 9.3 would be best advised to stick with proc_exit(1). Therefore, I maintain that this is not broken and doesn't need to be fixed. -- 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
