Mats Kindahl <mats@timescale.com> writes: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 4:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Yeah, the BackendStartup change is 100% wrong; it is replacing >> perfectly good code that recovers correctly with bad code that >> will take down the postmaster (not a backend child!) on OOM.
> AFAICT, the error is caught by the caller (using PG_TRY), executes some > cleanup code, and then continues executing, so it shouldn't take down the > postmaster.
There are no PG_TRY blocks in the postmaster, and certainly no recovery.
I added one in the patch. Doesn't this work? It seemed to work when I tried it.
