Re: NOTIFY does not work as expected

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-10-19 13:45:42 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I don't immediately see a problem with changing this for reads.

> One argument against changing it, although not a very strong one, is
> that processing a proc die even when non-blocking prevents us from
> processing commands like a client's X/terminate even if we already have
> the necessary input.

I'm pretty skeptical of these arguments, as they depend on assumptions
that there are no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS calls anywhere in the relevant
code paths outside be-secure.c. Even if that's true today, it doesn't
seem like something to depend on.

However, there's definitely merit in the idea that we shouldn't change
the ProcDie behavior if we don't have to in order to fix the NOTIFY
bug --- especially since I'd like to backpatch this. So if you're
happy with the revised patch, I can go with that one.

regards, tom lane