Re: A couple of cosmetic changes around shared memory code

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Piotr Stefaniak
> <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> wrote:
>>> while investigating the shm_mq code and its testing module I made some
>>> cosmetic improvements there. You can see them in the attached diff file.
>>
>> Revised patch attached.
>
> The first hunk of this corrects an outdated comment, so we should
> certainly apply that. I'm not seeing what the value of the other bits
> is.

- proc_exit(1);
+ proc_exit(0);
Looking again at this thread with fresh eyes, isn't the origin of the
confusion the fact that we do need to have a non-zero error code so as
the worker is never restarted thanks to BGW_NEVER_RESTART? Even with
that, it is a strange concept to leave with proc_exit(1) in the case
where a worker left correctly..
--
Michael