Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 21:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The thrust of my question was more along the lines of whether we should
>> look for a different solution to the current problem, so that we would
>> have something that could be back-ported into 8.2 and 8.3. Personally
>> I'm satisfied with only fixing it in 8.4 and up, but then again I don't
>> use Windows.
> Once we've shown that it works, I think we should look at doing
> something for <= 8.3 as well.
> How about something along the line of y previous patch (with the
> event) for 8.2 and 8.3, and then this simplified one for 8.4+?
Actually, I was just wondering how much we really need the dead-man
switch for this patch. If we don't have it, then what we risk is that
exit(128) will be taken as successful exit when it shouldn't be. But
how likely is it that such a call will ever be made? I think accepting
that small risk might be reasonable in the old branches. It's not like
the other possible fixes are zero-risk in themselves; especially not
patches that are only meant for the old branches and will never get
testing in HEAD.
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
