On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:06 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I don't think we have ever expressed it as such, but certainly we prefer
> postmaster to be super robust ... rather live with a some hundred bytes
> leak rather than have it die and take the whole database service down
> for what's essentially a fringe bug that has bothered no one in a decade
> and a half.
Well, yeah. I mean, I'm not saying it's a good idea in this instance
to FATAL here. I'm just saying that I don't think there is a general
rule that code which does FATAL in the postmaster is automatically
wrong, which is what I took Michael to be suggesting.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company