On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrou...@amazon.com> wrote: > > On 8/14/22 7:52 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrou...@amazon.com> > > wrote: > > > I think we can reduce the number of places the hook is called, if we > > call the hook from proc_exit(), and at all the other places we simply set > > a global variable to signify the reason for the failure. The case of > > _exit(1) from the signal-handler cannot use such a mechanism, but I > > think all the other cases of interest can simply register one of the > > FCET_* values, and let the call from proc_exit() pass that value > > to the hook. > > That looks like a good idea to me. I'm tempted to rewrite the patch that > way (and addressing the first comment in the same time). > > Curious to hear about others hackers thoughts too.
IMO, calling the hook from proc_exit() is not a good design as proc_exit() is a generic code called from many places in the source code, even the simple code of kind if(call_failed_conn_hook) { falied_conn_hook(params);} can come in the way of many exit code paths which is undesirable, and the likelihood of introducing new bugs may increase. -- Bharath Rupireddy RDS Open Source Databases: https://aws.amazon.com/rds/postgresql/