On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> And while we're on the subject ... isn't bgworker_die() utterly and >> completely broken? That unconditional elog(FATAL) means that no process >> using that handler can do anything remotely interesting, like say touch >> shared memory. > > Yeah, but for the record (since I see I got cc'd here), that's not my > fault. I moved it into bgworker.c, but it's been like that since > Alvaro's original commit of the bgworker facility > (da07a1e856511dca59cbb1357616e26baa64428e).
Is this an edge case or something that will hit a lot of users? Arbitrary server panics seems pretty serious... merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
