Re: [PATCH] Windows port, fix some resources leaks

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:11:47PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:06 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't think we have ever expressed it as such, but certainly we prefer
>> postmaster to be super robust ... rather live with a some hundred bytes
>> leak rather than have it die and take the whole database service down
>> for what's essentially a fringe bug that has bothered no one in a decade
>> and a half.
>
> Well, yeah. I mean, I'm not saying it's a good idea in this instance
> to FATAL here. I'm just saying that I don't think there is a general
> rule that code which does FATAL in the postmaster is automatically
> wrong, which is what I took Michael to be suggesting.

Re-reading the thread, I can see your point that my previous email may
read like a rule applying to the postmaster, so sorry for the
confusion.

Anyway, I was referring to the point mentioned in three places of
pgwin32_ReserveSharedMemoryRegion() to not use FATAL for this
routine. The issue with the order of DLL loading is hard to miss..
--
Michael