Re: low wal_retrieve_retry_interval causes missed signals on Windows

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: low wal_retrieve_retry_interval causes missed signals on Windows
Date: 2023-01-12 00:59:14
Message-ID: 20230112005914.GC2032194@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 04:40:14PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-01-11 15:26:45 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:48:36PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Given that we check for interrupts in other parts of recovery with
>> > HandleStartupProcInterrupt(), which doesn't interact with latches, isn't the
>> > actual bug that HandleStartupProcInterrupt() doesn't contain the same black
>> > magic that CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() contains on windows? Namely this stuff:
>> Yeah, this seems like a more comprehensive fix. I've attached a patch that
>> adds this Windows signaling stuff to the HandleXXXInterrupts() functions in
>> the files you listed. Is this roughly what you had in mind? If so, I'll
>> look around for anywhere else it is needed.
> Yes, that's what I roughly was thinking of. Although seeing the diff, I think
> it might be worth introducing a helper function that'd containing at least
> pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() and ProcessProcSignalBarrier(). It's a bit
> complicated by ProcessProcSignalBarrier() only being applicable to shared
> memory connected processes - excluding e.g. pgarch.

As of d75288f, the archiver should be connected to shared memory, so we
might be in luck. I guess we'd need to watch out for this if we want to
back-patch it beyond v14. I'll work on a patch...

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-01-12 01:06:22 Re: on placeholder entries in view rule action query's range table
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-01-12 00:57:13 Re: No Callbacks on FATAL