Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On 2017-01-26 19:36:11 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > Currently a waiting standby doesn't allow interrupts.
> >> >
> >> > Patch implements that.
> >> >
> >> > Barring objection, patching today with backpatches.
> >>
> >> "today" is a little quick, but the patch looks fine. I doubt anyone's
> >> going to screech too loud about adding a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call.
> >
> > I don't quite get asking for agreement, and then not waiting as
> > suggested. I'm personally fine with going with a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
> > for now, but I think it'd better to replace it with a latch.
>
> I have waited, so not sure what you mean.

Well, Robert today said >> "today" is a little quick <<.

> Tomorrow is too late.

Huh? We're not wrapping today/tomorrow, are we? If I missed something
and we are, then sure, it makes sense to push ahead.

> Replacing with a latch wouldn't be backpatchable, IMHO.

Hm, don't quite see why - isn't it just like three lines?

Andres