On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2012-01-18 at 21:21 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On lör, 2012-01-07 at 16:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> > > I suggest that we change PostgresMain(), PostmasterMain(), BackendRun(),
>> > > WalSende
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2012-01-18 at 21:21 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On lör, 2012-01-07 at 16:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> > > I suggest that we change PostgresMain(), PostmasterMain(), BackendRun(),
>> > > WalSende
On ons, 2012-01-18 at 21:21 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2012-01-07 at 16:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > > I suggest that we change PostgresMain(), PostmasterMain(), BackendRun(),
> > > WalSenderMain(), and WalSndLoop() to return void as well.
> >
> > I agr
On lör, 2012-01-07 at 16:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I suggest that we change PostgresMain(), PostmasterMain(), BackendRun(),
> > WalSenderMain(), and WalSndLoop() to return void as well.
>
> I agree this code is not very consistent or useful, but one question:
> what
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I suggest that we change PostgresMain(), PostmasterMain(), BackendRun(),
> WalSenderMain(), and WalSndLoop() to return void as well.
I agree this code is not very consistent or useful, but one question:
what should the callers do if one of these functions *does* return?
There is a bit of confusion around the return values and return
protocols of the sub-main functions in the backend (PostgresMain etc.).
Some functions are declared to return int but never return. It would be
useful to make this consistent by either making them return void or
making some use of the
