I wrote:
> I propose the attached. I'm inclined to think that the risk/benefit
> of back-patching this is not very good, so I just want to stick it in
> HEAD, unless somebody can explain why dead_end children are likely to
> crash in the field.
Pushed at ee3278239.
I'm still curious as to the explanation for a dead_end child exiting
with code 15, but I have no way to pursue the point.
regards, tom lane