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?