On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 22:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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.
I agree on option #3 not being good - that'd basically be dead-end
code in backbranches only, and it's significantly different.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/