From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Better client reporting for "immediate stop" shutdowns |
Date: | 2020-12-24 18:04:44 |
Message-ID: | 847983.1608833084@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:02 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> There might be an argument for emitting the "unexpected SIGQUIT"
>> text if we find garbage in sigquit_reason. Any thoughts about that?
> Although I can't think of any case now, IMHO we can still have a
> default case(we may or may not hit it) in the switch with a message
> something like "terminating connection due to unexpected SIGQUIT".
I don't really want to add a default case just on speculation. We
generally prefer to avoid writing a default in a switch that's supposed
to cover all values of an enum type, because without the default most C
compilers will warn you if you omit a value, whereas with the default
they won't. Admittedly, it's unlikely someone would add a new
QuitSignalReason and forget to update this code, but still it's not
really project style to do it like that. I don't think there's enough
risk here to go against the style.
Hence, pushed it like that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-24 22:07:43 | Re: Preventing hangups in bgworker start/stop during DB shutdown |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-24 16:13:50 | Re: Preventing hangups in bgworker start/stop during DB shutdown |