Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process

On 2016-09-20 11:07:03 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah, I wondered why that was different than the pattern established
> elsewhere when I was hacking on replication code.  There are actually
> several places where we call PostmasterIsAlive() unconditionally in a
> loop that waits for WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH but ignores the return code:

Note that just changing this implies a behavioural change in at least
some of those: If the loop is busy with work, the WaitLatch might never
be reached.  I think that might be ok in most of those, but it does
require examination.

- Andres