| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tristan Partin <tristan(at)neon(dot)tech>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection |
| Date: | 2024-04-03 14:31:40 |
| Message-ID: | 2049574.1712154700@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> writes:
> Looking at the committed version of this patch, the pg_unreachable
> calls seemed weird to me. 1 is actually incorrect, thus possibly
> resulting in undefined behaviour. And for the other call an imho
> better fix would be to remove the now 21 year unused enum variant,
> instead of introducing its only reference in the whole codebase.
If we do the latter, we will almost certainly get pushback from
distros who check for library ABI breaks. I fear the comment
suggesting that we could remove it someday is too optimistic.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2024-04-03 14:48:08 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-03 14:27:01 | Re: Is it safe to cache data by GiST consistent function |