Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > My guess is that this used to proc_exit the postgres backend, but now
> > proc_exits the postmaster, but that is only a guess.
>
> No. This is post-fork (and had better remain so). The change causes
> the sub-postmaster that has just finished handling a cancel request
> to exit with nonzero status, which the postmaster then interprets
> (correctly) as a child process crash.
>
> BTW, how are we going to do cancels in Windows-land? The sub-postmaster
> isn't gonna have access to the postmaster's list of child PIDs and
> cancel keys ...
When you say sub-postmaster, you mean we fork, then process the cancel
request? Seems we might need special handling in there, yea.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073