> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Comments are welcome.
> 
> This is a bad idea.  It makes an already-poorly-tested code path
> significantly more fragile, in return for nothing of value.

Are you saying that procsignal.c is the already-poorly-tested one? If
so, why?

As for "value", I have already explained why we need this in the
upthread.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

In response to

• Re: How to know killed by pg_terminate_backend at 2011-01-02 16:49:39 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2011-01-02 23:23:19
	Subject: Re: Recovery conflict monitoring
Previous:	From: Peter Geoghegan	Date: 2011-01-02 22:51:13
	Subject: Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>)