Re: A couple of cosmetic changes around shared memory code

On 2016-06-29 18:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> This code predates be7558162acc5578d0b2cf0c8d4c76b6076ce352, prior to
> which proc_exit(0) forced an immediate, unconditional restart.  It's
> true that, given that commit, changing this code to do proc_exit(0)
> instead of proc_exit(1) would be harmless.  However, people writing
> background workers that might need to work with 9.3 would be best
> advised to stick with proc_exit(1).  Therefore, I maintain that this
> is not broken and doesn't need to be fixed.

Then I'd argue that it ought to be documented in form of a C comment for 
people writing background workers and for those who might want to "fix" 
this in the future.