On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> We certainly now have MANY documented field complaints at least of the >> exit-128-on-Windows problem, if not the more general >> backend-exits-without-going-through-the-normal-cleanup-path problem. > > Right, which is why I still don't care to risk back-porting a fix for > the latter.
It's hard to say what the safest option is, I think. There seem to be basically three proposals on the table: 1. Back-port the dead-man switch, and ignore exit 128. 2. Don't back-port the dead-man switch, but ignore exit 128 anyway. 3. Revert to Magnus's original solution. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of #1 is that it is safer than #2, and that is usually something we prize fairly highly. The disadvantage of #1 is that it involves back-porting the dead-man switch, but on the flip side that code has been out in the field for over a year now in 8.4, and AFAIK we haven't any trouble with it. Solution #3 should be approximately as safe as solution #1, and has the advantage of touching less code in the back branches, but on the other hand it is also NEW code. So I think it's arguable which is the best solution. I think I like option #2 least as among those choices, but it's a tough call. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
