Re: bgworker crashed or not?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Agreed, but after further reflection it seems like if you've declared
>> a restart interval, then "done until restart interval" is probably the
>> common case. So how about ...

> I think what I proposed is better for two reasons:

> 1. It doesn't change the meaning of exit(1) vs. 9.3. All background
> worker code I've seen or heard about (which is admittedly not all
> there is) does exit(1) because the current exit(0) behavior doesn't
> seem to be what anyone wants.

Hm. If that's actually the case, then I agree that preserving the
current behavior of exit(1) is useful. I'd been assuming we were
breaking things anyway.

regards, tom lane