Use proc_exit() in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition

On 4/8/26 11:08 AM, Chao Li wrote:

While working on another patch, I happened to notice that WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() calls raw exit(1). I think this should use proc_exit(1) instead, so that the normal cleanup machinery is not bypassed.

This tiny patch just replaces exit(1) with proc_exit(1) in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition().

This looks likely to be correct since when we exit in WalReceiverMain()
(on WALRCV_STOPPING and WALRCV_STOPPED) we call proc_exit(1). I feel we
should exit the same way in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() as we do in
WalReceiverMain() and if not I would like a comment explaining why those
two cases are different.

Andreas

On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 5:00 AM Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote:

On 4/8/26 11:08 AM, Chao Li wrote:

While working on another patch, I happened to notice that WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() calls raw exit(1). I think this should use proc_exit(1) instead, so that the normal cleanup machinery is not bypassed.

This tiny patch just replaces exit(1) with proc_exit(1) in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition().

This looks likely to be correct since when we exit in WalReceiverMain()
(on WALRCV_STOPPING and WALRCV_STOPPED) we call proc_exit(1). I feel we
should exit the same way in WalRcvWaitForStartPosition() as we do in
WalReceiverMain() and if not I would like a comment explaining why those
two cases are different.

+1

WalRcvWaitForStartPosition, WALRCV_STOPPING before entering wait loop
uses proc_exit(0) for WALRCV_STOPPING, while this path should probably
use proc_exit(0) as well (not proc_exit(1)), since the stop was a
requested shutdown, not an error. Using exit code 1 for a clean
stop-on-request seems inconsistent.

--
Best,
Xuneng