On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> I like that better actually ... one less thing for developers to get wrong.
>>
>>> The attached patch appears to work correctly on MacOS X. I did check,
>>> BTW: getppid() in the attached process returns gdb's pid. Poor!
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>>
>>> For my own purposes, I would be just as happy to apply this only to
>>> master. But I wonder if anyone wants to argue for back-patching, to
>>> help debug existing installations?
>>
>> Given the lack of non-developer complaints, I see no need to backpatch.
>
> Well, non-developers don't tend to attach gdb very often. Alvaro
> mentioned a problem installation upthread, thus the question.
Hearing no cries of "please-oh-please-backpatch-this", I've committed
it just to master.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
