On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 8:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> What I'd suggest is to promote that failure to elog(PANIC), which
> >> would at least give us the PID and if we're lucky a stack trace.
>
> > That proposed change is fine with me.
>
> > As to the question of whether it's a real bug, nobody can prove
> > anything unless we actually run it down.
>
> Agreed, and I'll even grant your point that if it is an HPUX-specific
> or IA64-specific bug, it is not worth spending huge amounts of time
> to isolate. The problem is that we don't know that. What we do know
> so far is that if it can occur elsewhere, it's rare --- so we'd better
> be prepared to glean as much info as possible if we do get such a
> failure. Hence my thought of s/ERROR/PANIC/. And I'd be in favor of
> any other low-effort change we can make to instrument the case better.
OK, pushed (except I realised that all the PIDs involved were int, not
pid_t). Let's see...
