On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> This seems surprising to me: any other program in the world would do >>>> exit(1) after discovering that it couldn't write where it had been >>>> told to. Should we change this? > >>> I assume this is a rhetorical question. > >> How about this one: do we change this behavior in the back branches? > > I don't think we should change this in stable branches. I would vote > for fixing it in 9.5, though, mainly because the fix is going to interact > with the extended-mode-wrap fixes I'm also working on.
Oh. I would assume this was an obvious back-patch back to the stone age. It seems like flagrant bug. Let's revive 7.4 just to fix this. :-) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
