On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> You are arguing from assumptions not in evidence, specifically that
> if we reap a PID that isn't one we recognize, this must be what
> happened. I think it's *at least* as likely that the case implies
> some bug in the postmaster's child-process bookkeeping, ...
It's hard to rule that out completely, but it doesn't seem incredibly
likely to me. I would think that if we had such bugs they would result
in system instability that is also not in evidence.
> Independently of that, as was pointed out upthread, being init requires
> more than just ignoring unrecognized results from waitpid. We shouldn't
> take on that responsibility when there are perfectly good solutions out
> there already.
That's a separate point that should be judged on its own merits. I
don't have an educated opinion on how hard it would be, or how
valuable it would be.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
