Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > 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. Well, I don't want to use Magnus' original solution in 8.4 or up, so I don't like #3 much: it's not only new code but code which would get very limited testing. And I don't believe that the risk of unexpected use of exit(128) is large enough to make #1 preferable to #2. YMMV. 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